PDA

View Full Version : Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan 'for blasphemy'



Odysseus
11-11-2010, 03:49 PM
Christian woman sentenced to death in Pakistan 'for blasphemy'
A Christian woman has been sentenced to hang in Pakistan after being convicted of defaming the Prophet Mohammed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8120142/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-Pakistan-for-blasphemy.html

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01758/Asia-Bibi-_1758048c.jpg
Asia Bibi has been sentenced to death 'for blasphemy'

By Rob Crilly in Islamabad and Aoun Sahi in Lahore 5:36PM GMT 09 Nov 2010

Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother-of-five, denies blasphemy and told investigators that she was being persecuted for her faith in a country where Christians face routine harassment and discrimination.

Christian groups and human rights campaigners condemned the verdict and called for the blasphemy laws to be repealed.

Her supporters say she will now appeal against the sentence handed down in a local court in the town of Sheikhupura, near Lahore, Pakistan.

Ashiq Masih, her husband, said he had not had the heart to break the news to two of their children.

"I haven't told two of my younger daughters about the court's decision," he said. "They asked me many times about their mother but I can't get the courage to tell them that the judge has sentenced their mother to capital punishment for a crime she never committed." Mrs Bibi has been held in prison since June last year.

The court heard she had been working as a farmhand in fields with other women, when she was asked to fetch drinking water.

Some of the other women all Muslims refused to drink the water as it had been brought by a Christian and was therefore "unclean", according to Mrs Bibi's evidence, sparking a row.

The incident was forgotten until a few days later when Mrs Bibi said she was set upon by a mob.

The police were called and took her to a police station for her own safety.

Shahzad Kamran, of the Sharing Life Ministry Pakistan, said: "The police were under pressure from this Muslim mob, including clerics, asking for Asia to be killed because she had spoken ill of the Prophet Mohammed.

"So after the police saved her life they then registered a blasphemy case against her." He added that she had been held in isolation for more than a year before being sentenced to death on Monday.

"The trial was clear," he said. "She was innocent and did not say those words." Earlier this year, Pakistan's internet service providers were ordered to block Facebook to prevent access to supposedly blasphemous images.

Human rights groups believe the law is often used to discriminate against religious minorities, such as the country's estimated three million Christians.

Although no one has ever been executed under Pakistan's blasphemy laws most are freed on appeal as many as 10 people are thought to have been murdered while on trial.

Ali Hasan Dayan, of Human Rights Watch, said the blasphemy laws were out of step with rights guaranteed under Pakistan's constitution and should be repealed.

"It's an obscene law," he said. "Essentially the blasphemy law is used as a tool of persecution and to settle other scores that are nothing to do with religion.

"It makes religious minorities particularly vulnerable because it's often used against them."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion of Peace, you know...

Gingersnap
11-11-2010, 06:25 PM
ROPMA as usual. As long as it's a woman, not a gay man, everything's right in tolerance-world. :rolleyes:

SaintLouieWoman
11-11-2010, 07:17 PM
ROPMA as usual. As long as it's a woman, not a gay man, everything's right in tolerance-world. :rolleyes:

I thought our esteemed President would comment when he was in that part of the world. He did say he's a Christian, right? But I guess this would be a distraction from his latest apology/suck up to the Muslim world tour.

Odysseus
11-11-2010, 07:37 PM
ROPMA as usual. As long as it's a woman, not a gay man, everything's right in tolerance-world. :rolleyes:

Now come on. You know that if it were a gay man, the tolerance class would be just as indifferent. It's a part of their culture, you see, and who are we to impose our morals on them? Western liberals only impose their morals (or lack of them) on conservatives, Christians, Jews, Anglos or anyone else no likely to retaliate with violence.

hampshirebrit
11-11-2010, 09:19 PM
Our ally Pakistan would do such a thing.

Shame on us for having such an ally.

Odysseus
11-12-2010, 09:49 AM
Our ally Pakistan would do such a thing.

Shame on us for having such an ally.

Pakistan is definitely more problem than solution. They created the Taliban because they couldn't control the original mujahedeen who drove out the Soviets and then provided sanctuary to them after 9/11, Their ISI is riddled with Salafi fanatics and our aid might as well go straight to al Qaeda.

We really need to back India to the hilt.

Starbuck
11-12-2010, 10:21 AM
Great. The Islamic community has evolved all the way to where Christians were in 1690. Come to think of it, that would be about right since they were not really organized as a religion until about 600. Looks like we have a long time to wait for them to join the modern world.

The Night Owl
11-12-2010, 11:00 AM
ROPMA as usual. As long as it's a woman, not a gay man, everything's right in tolerance-world. :rolleyes:

What are you objecting to? That the Koran prescribes the death penalty for blasphemy or that some Muslim societies follow that prescription?

noonwitch
11-12-2010, 11:49 AM
ROPMA as usual. As long as it's a woman, not a gay man, everything's right in tolerance-world. :rolleyes:



Not only that, she didn't even commit the blashphemy she was accused of.

wilbur
11-12-2010, 12:06 PM
ROPMA as usual. As long as it's a woman, not a gay man, everything's right in tolerance-world. :rolleyes:

Oh, I don't know... it seems like human rights organizations are doing what they can for this lady, though I don't know what that actually entails, or how much its likely to help.

Is the "tolerance-world" as you call it, really ignoring this and/or does it consistently ignore other cases like it? I don't know, I've seen plenty of the same people who fight for gay rights also decry religiously based human rights abuses.

Odysseus
11-12-2010, 12:37 PM
What are you upset about? That the Koran prescribes the death penalty for blasphemy or that some Muslim societies follow that prescription?

Both, really, and the fact that it's almost impossible to find a Muslim society that doesn't, and that the standard of proof in these cases is nonexistent (a Christian or Jew's testimony in a Sharia court is worth half of a Muslim's) and the standard of conduct is, to say the least, fluid. Literally anything that doesn't smack of absolute submission by a non-Muslim can be used to charge blasphemy, defamation of Islam or defamation of the prophet. For example, naming a teddy bear Muhammed almost got a teacher killed in North Africa. Basically, the lives of non-Muslims in Muslim states are in perpetual peril, and their safety is contingent on their neighbors not feeling up to denouncing them. Dhimmihood is a hellish existence, and we need to expose it, especially since there are those who want to impose Sharia here, in the US.

The Night Owl
11-12-2010, 02:26 PM
Both, really, and the fact that it's almost impossible to find a Muslim society that doesn't, and that the standard of proof in these cases is nonexistent (a Christian or Jew's testimony in a Sharia court is worth half of a Muslim's) and the standard of conduct is, to say the least, fluid. Literally anything that doesn't smack of absolute submission by a non-Muslim can be used to charge blasphemy, defamation of Islam or defamation of the prophet. For example, naming a teddy bear Muhammed almost got a teacher killed in North Africa. Basically, the lives of non-Muslims in Muslim states are in perpetual peril, and their safety is contingent on their neighbors not feeling up to denouncing them. Dhimmihood is a hellish existence, and we need to expose it, especially since there are those who want to impose Sharia here, in the US.

So, help me understand the basis for the outrage being expressed here. Does the Islamic penalty for blasphemy upset you because you consider it barbaric or because you believe it serves the wrong deity?

enslaved1
11-12-2010, 05:34 PM
Not to interrupt what will no doubt be a fascinating debate here, but just so y'all know, this is nothing new. Check Voice of the Martyrs (http://www.persecution.com) to find daily examples of such actions, often in Muslim nations, but they don't have a corner on the market. Beatings, imprisonment, murder, arson, ect, and few words from the forces for "tolerance" and "equality".

hampshirebrit
11-12-2010, 06:33 PM
So, help me understand the basis for the outrage being expressed here. Does the Islamic penalty for blasphemy upset you because you consider it barbaric or because you believe it serves the wrong deity?

I'm assuming the question is not only for Ody, since you used the term "outrage being expressed here", so I will answer on my own behalf:

I think that the entire concept of "blasphemy" is an insult and an affront to human intelligence.

It really does not matter to me which of the numerous man-made religious cults makes such a charge.

Any charge of blasphemy has, by definition, to be a false charge, one that serves only to impose penalty (often painful or even, as in this case, lethal) for disbelief in the dominant cult's belief system.

Odysseus
11-12-2010, 06:59 PM
So, help me understand the basis for the outrage being expressed here. Does the Islamic penalty for blasphemy upset you because you consider it barbaric or because you believe it serves the wrong deity?

I consider it barbaric, but I also consider Islam dangerous because its most basic tenet is that everyone must submit to the will of Allah, believer or not. As a Jew, I don't care if a Catholic eats pork (we're forbidden it as a noun, you see...), and a Catholic priest doesn't care who I pork (they are forbidden it as a verb), but to a Muslim, anything any of us do must comply with the Qur'an or Allah commands our humiliation, subjugation or death. The charge of blasphemy against a non-Muslim is not simply an example of barbaric conduct, but of a supremecist mindset that persecutes anyone of any other faith.

hampshirebrit
11-12-2010, 07:13 PM
I consider it barbaric, but I also consider Islam dangerous because its most basic tenet is that everyone must submit to the will of Allah, believer or not. As a Jew, I don't care if a Catholic eats pork (we're forbidden it as a noun, you see...), and a Catholic priest doesn't care who I pork (they are forbidden it as a verb), but to a Muslim, anything any of us do must comply with the Qur'an or Allah commands our humiliation, subjugation or death. The charge of blasphemy against a non-Muslim is not simply an example of barbaric conduct, but of a supremecist mindset that persecutes anyone of any other faith.

Good point, and I should and indeed meant to, include the point that Islam, above all, seems presently to be particularly fond of the concept of blasphemy, of all the Abrahamic monotheistic religions.

Certainly, where one used to hear about adherents of the first two of these bringing blasphemy charges (in my own lifetime, even), nowadays it is almost always from "holy" Islam that such charges seem to originate.

Gingersnap
11-12-2010, 07:40 PM
So, help me understand the basis for the outrage being expressed here. Does the Islamic penalty for blasphemy upset you because you consider it barbaric or because you believe it serves the wrong deity?

You have a really low bar set for "outrage". I made a mild comment. My mild comment was observational and accurate. Much more has been made in the press when gay men are the object of Islamic law. Women, Christians, Druze, and agnostics don't feel much love from the international community, let alone the professional advocacy community.

The Night Owl
11-12-2010, 09:39 PM
I consider it barbaric, but I also consider Islam dangerous because its most basic tenet is that everyone must submit to the will of Allah, believer or not. As a Jew, I don't care if a Catholic eats pork (we're forbidden it as a noun, you see...), and a Catholic priest doesn't care who I pork (they are forbidden it as a verb), but to a Muslim, anything any of us do must comply with the Qur'an or Allah commands our humiliation, subjugation or death. The charge of blasphemy against a non-Muslim is not simply an example of barbaric conduct, but of a supremecist mindset that persecutes anyone of any other faith.

Wait a second. Are you suggesting that the Islamic penalty for blasphemy is barbaric only when Muslims apply it to non-Muslims?


The charge of blasphemy against a non-Muslim is not simply an example of barbaric conduct, but of a supremecist mindset that persecutes anyone of any other faith.

Well, all the Abrahamic faiths are basically imperialistic ventures built on occultism so let's not single out any one faith.

The Night Owl
11-12-2010, 09:59 PM
You have a really low bar set for "outrage". I made a mild comment. My mild comment was observational and accurate. Much more has been made in the press when gay men are the object of Islamic law. Women, Christians, Druze, and agnostics don't feel much love from the international community, let alone the professional advocacy community.

Perhaps I was projecting some of my own feeling. I think people should be outraged by the story of a woman sentenced to death for blasphemy... but I think they should be outraged for the right reason-- because the penalty is barbaric, not because it serves what they believe is the wrong deity.

Gingersnap
11-12-2010, 10:09 PM
Perhaps I was projecting some of my own feeling. I think people should be outraged by the story of a woman sentenced to death for blasphemy... but I think they should be outraged for the right reason-- because the penalty is barbaric, not because it serves what they believe is the wrong deity.

I'm pretty sure a deity-evaluation wasn't on my mind.

Odysseus
11-13-2010, 09:58 AM
Good point, and I should and indeed meant to, include the point that Islam, above all, seems presently to be particularly fond of the concept of blasphemy, of all the Abrahamic monotheistic religions.

Certainly, where one used to hear about adherents of the first two of these bringing blasphemy charges (in my own lifetime, even), nowadays it is almost always from "holy" Islam that such charges seem to originate.
I don't recall any Jews being punished for blasphemy in my lifetime, and the three branches have different definitions, with the Orthodox being the most conventional in terms of what is considered blasphemy. Among Conservative Jews, blasphemy is wearing white after labor day and among Reform Jews, it's voting Republican.

Wait a second. Are you suggesting that the Islamic penalty for blasphemy is barbaric only when Muslims apply it to non-Muslims?

No, I'm saying that when they apply it to non-Muslims, that it is a tool of persecution and conquest. When it is done to other Muslims, it is a means of stifling dissent and maintaining control. I don't approve of either, but I am more concerned with the expansion of Islam and the militant globalized jihad that directly threatens us than I am about the aesthetics of religious orthodoxy.


Well, all the Abrahamic faiths are basically imperialistic ventures built on occultism so let's not single out any one faith.
Got it. Christianity, which hasn't waged a religious war in centuries, and Judaism, which hasn't been a prosletyzing religion since the destruction of Solomon's Temple, are no better than Islam, which imposes Sharia on believer and non-believer alike, and treats non-believers as scum, to be enslaved, subjugated or murdered. More importantly, major swathes of Christianity and Judaism haven't declared war on the west. Islam has. Do you, perhaps, see that one faith that might be just a tad more inclined to violence ought to be singled out for it? Regardless, I'll be dismissing you as a crank now. Try not to take it personally.

I'm pretty sure a deity-evaluation wasn't on my mind.

There are fundamental differences between Islam and the other Abrahamic religions. Islam assumes a perpetual state of war with the non-Islamic world, and forbids accomodation or peaceful coexistence.

AmPat
11-13-2010, 01:36 PM
Oh, I don't know... it seems like human rights organizations are doing what they can for this lady, though I don't know what that actually entails, or how much its likely to help.

Is the "tolerance-world" as you call it, really ignoring this and/or does it consistently ignore other cases like it? I don't know, I've seen plenty of the same people who fight for gay rights also decry religiously based human rights abuses.Well, that makes one person on this board.

I have seen ZERO of the "enlightened liberal" groups speak out. I have seen them point out imagined Christian abuses though.:cool:

AmPat
11-13-2010, 01:37 PM
So, help me understand the basis for the outrage being expressed here. Does the Islamic penalty for blasphemy upset you because you consider it barbaric or because you believe it serves the wrong deity?

Both.:rolleyes: Standing by for the typical anti-Christian bashing routine. You are way too transparent so why don't you get it out of your system already?

The Night Owl
11-14-2010, 11:50 AM
Got it. Christianity, which hasn't waged a religious war in centuries, and Judaism, which hasn't been a prosletyzing religion since the destruction of Solomon's Temple, are no better than Islam, which imposes Sharia on believer and non-believer alike, and treats non-believers as scum, to be enslaved, subjugated or murdered. More importantly, major swathes of Christianity and Judaism haven't declared war on the west. Islam has. Do you, perhaps, see that one faith that might be just a tad more inclined to violence ought to be singled out for it? Regardless, I'll be dismissing you as a crank now. Try not to take it personally.

If Christians are behaving better than Muslims (I agree they are), it's only because they're not following most of the prescriptions in their holy book, which is as totalitarian as the Muslim holy book.

The problem with Islam isn't that the faith is being perverted. It's that the faith is being followed to the letter.

The Night Owl
11-14-2010, 12:01 PM
I'm pretty sure a deity-evaluation wasn't on my mind.

I'm not asking for an evaluation of deities. I'm asking for an evaluation of this precept which requires the killing of blasphemers. Is the precept itself barbaric in all cases or is it barbaric only in regard to Islam?

CueSi
11-14-2010, 12:12 PM
Most Christians follow the New Testament (Bible 2.0) a lot closer than the Old Testament (Bible 1.0), which doesn't have alot of killin' going on comparatively. Just saying. It seems like a false comparison-- stepping over Islam to try to smack Christianity.

~QC

3rd-try
11-14-2010, 12:36 PM
If Christians are behaving better than Muslims (I agree they are), it's only because they're not following the prescriptions in their holy book, which is as totalitarian as the Muslim holy book.

The problem with Islam isn't that the faith is being perverted. It's that the faith is being followed to the letter.

Let's make this really simple. They plan on killing this woman. A culture-probe is not needed. A discussion of how Muslim's read their book vs. how Christians read their book is not needed.

It's a very sad reality that we can't/won't prevent the public murder of an innocent person by a government that is supposedly on our side.

Odysseus
11-14-2010, 02:22 PM
I'm not asking for an evaluation of deities. I'm asking for an evaluation of this precept which requires the killing of blasphemers. Is the precept itself barbaric in all cases or is it barbaric only in regard to Islam?


If Christians are behaving better than Muslims (I agree they are), it's only because they're not following most of the prescriptions in their holy book, which is as totalitarian as the Muslim holy book.

The problem with Islam isn't that the faith is being perverted. It's that the faith is being followed to the letter.
The latter is true. The former is not.

Bill Warner provides an excellent comparison of the Bible, the Torah and the Qur'an (which, combined with the Hadiths and the Sunna, comprise the totality of Islamic texts), literally counting the references to, and incitements to, violence in each. His article follows:


is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Koran? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison, and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.


The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is what they do to the "other," or political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note that regardless of whether a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions violent, neither constitutes violence against vegans or PETA members.

The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called "fighting in Allah's cause," or jihad.

We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira, and Hadith, or the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed's biography. The Hadith are his traditions -- what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, also called the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text[1]. This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam's sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed's is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.

It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:
http://www.americanthinker.com/jihadtrilogy_72dpi.jpg

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.
(Link only, as the chart is ginormous) (http://www.americanthinker.com/MuslimGrowthGraph_300dpi.jpg)

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of ten new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of ten thousand per year. All the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad -- world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual, and the Hadith is a tactical manual, of jihad.

Now let's go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.

When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy[2] and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible[3]. The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.

The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is also the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts and that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics, and intellectuals. What artist, critic, or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats against and/or murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortune, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic, or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the responses to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruits from the two trees are as different as night and day.
http://www.americanthinker.com/bible-koran-political-violence.jpg

It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.

- Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam

http://www.politicalislam.com



Let's make this really simple. They plan on killing this woman. A culture-probe is not needed. A discussion of how Muslim's read their book vs. how Christians read their book is not needed.

It's a very sad reality that we can't/won't prevent the public murder of an innocent person by a government that is supposedly on our side.
We don't know that we can't. They are sensitive to pressure, and we can bring it to bear. The problem is that this case has a very high profile, both because of the extreme penalty, but because we actually do get news reports out of Pakistan, which has a relatively free press. The systematic persecution of non-Muslims in Islamic countries that have only state-run media gets much less coverage unless people are willing to risk their lives to expose it. Iran has stoned thousands of women to death, and killed Christians and Jews within the country, since the Khomeini revolution. Sudan's genocide in the Christian/Animist south, which preceded their Darfur genocide, is ongoing, but gets little coverage. Saudi Arabia continues to behead those who run afoul of its laws, the foreigners far outnumber Saudis among those beheaded. While in Indonesia, Obama found time to criticise Israel for building apartments in its capital, but didn't muster any outrage over recently passed Indonesian laws that further criminalize homosexuality (I guess the military isn't the only part of the government that can play Don't Ask, Don't Tell).

This is a horrible act, done in accordance with a horrific legal code in service to corrupt, tribal regimes that behave like this wherever they can get away with it.

hampshirebrit
11-14-2010, 03:53 PM
We don't know that we can't. They are sensitive to pressure, and we can bring it to bear.

I think you are right. It turns out that Pakistan has yet to prosecute a blasphemy case to its full conclusion. No one, to date, has been executed for blasphemy (that we know of) in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. If it happens now, it will be a first.

The problem, really, is representative of the disconnect between the government and the population of Pakistan.

I guarantee that the bulk of this unfortunate woman's neighbours in rural Pakistan are baying for the sentence to be carried out in full ... her neighbours brought these charges, after all.

The question now really is which opinion will the government cede to first, ours or theirs.

The Night Owl
11-15-2010, 11:33 AM
Is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Koran? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison, and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.

The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is what they do to the "other," or political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note that regardless of whether a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions violent, neither constitutes violence against vegans or PETA members.

Huh? I'm sorry but I don't accept this premise that the only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is political violence. I mean, what does that even mean?


http://www.americanthinker.com/bible-koran-political-violence.jpg

Words devoted to political violence? What does that mean? If a call to violence in the Koran contains more words than a call to violence in the Bible, we must conclude that the Koran is more violent? That doesn't make much sense.

This material you've presented is very questionable. Without knowing exactly what is being counted or not counted as political violence (whatever that means), we have no way of assessing the methodology used in the comparison.

The New Testament is less violent than the Old Testament but there is no rebuke of Old Testament cruelty in the New Testament. Why would there be? If the New Testament is to be believed then Jesus was the incarnation of the violent God of the Old Testament.

Anyway, I'm still confused about your position on punishing blasphemy. Can we say that killing people for blasphemy is barbaric in all cases?

AmPat
11-15-2010, 01:33 PM
Typical; I don't like the devastating evidence against me and I have no answer to counter the evidence so I'll act like I don't understand the evidence argument.:rolleyes:

Odysseus
11-15-2010, 01:57 PM
Huh? I'm sorry but I don't accept this premise that the only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is political violence. I mean, what does that even mean?

What you accept or don't accept is of little importance in this thread, and of none to me, personally. However, the definition of political violence was presented above. Here it is again, and I will gladly explain any big words that are giving you trouble.


The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is what they do to the "other," or political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note that regardless of whether a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions violent, neither constitutes violence against vegans or PETA members.

Now, this is to distinguish between violence between, say, David and Saul, or Cain and Abel, i.e., individual acts which are not the result of divine commandment.


Words devoted to political violence? What does that mean? If a call to violence in the Koran contains more words than a call to violence in the Bible, we must conclude that the Koran is more violent? That doesn't make much sense.

Again, if you had read the exerpt from the article, you would know that words devoted to political violence are those words which, wait for it, are devoted to political violence. The point is not that one call to violence is longer than another, but the percentage of the book that is dedicated to calls to violence. By counting individual words or passages, we can then determine what percentage of a work is devoted to admonishing the faithful to kill the unfaithful, which gives us an idea of the intensity of the commandment. For example, if you were to write a book in which an incidental character commits a murder, while I wrote a book in which the hero goes on a killing spree and racks up a body count, taking up most of the book to do so, you could determine, by counting the number of words in the books, and the number of words devoted to murders, determine which book was not only more violent, but you would have a percentage by which to compare them. This is not a difficult concept, unless you deliberately choose to make it one.


This material you've presented is very questionable. Without knowing exactly what is being counted or not counted as political violence (whatever that means), we have no way of assessing the methodology used in the comparison.

The thing that is being counted is known as a word. It is formed by individual letters or, in the case of certain languages, pictographic representations of the concepts of those words, but since this discussion is not about Chinese or ancient Egyption, it is not relevent. In this case, the words that are being counted are the words in those passages in which God or his messengers exhort the followers of the given faith to commit acts of violence against others who are not of the faith. Political violence has been defined twice. I will not define it a third time unless you admit that you are too dense to grasp the first two.


The New Testament is less violent than the Old Testament but there is no rebuke of Old Testament cruelty in the New Testament. Why would there be? If the New Testament is to be believed then Jesus was the incarnation of the violent God of the Old Testament.

Even if Jesus' pronouncements of peace were not a deliberate repudiation of Old Testament violence, the admonitions to turn the other cheek and embrace peace stand alone as calls away from violence, which would mark a significant change in doctrine. The violence of the Old Testament is irrelevent to the New Testament, as there are a number of practices which went by the wayside in the transition from Judaism to Christianity. For example, there is no rebuke of eating pork in the New Testament, and yet Christians can do so. Regardless, even the Old Testament is far less violent than the Qur'an, Suras and Hadiths, which contain far more exhortations to violence against non-believers, and even specify the type of violence to be indulged in. The Muslim texts also have to be understood in the context of abrogation, in which later texts abrogate, or overthrow previous ones. Thus, the later suras of the Qur'an that conflict with earlier ones are determined to be canon, and the older ones are not followed. The peaceful quotes in the Qur'an come from the Mecca period, while the violent exhortations come from the later Medina period, when Mohammed embarked on conquest of the Arabian peninsula. There is no comparable period of conquest in Christianity, and the tribal wars of the Judeans against the various other peoples of the region and presented as history, rather than an ongoing call to battle.


Anyway, I'm still confused about your position on punishing blasphemy. Can we say that killing people for blasphemy is barbaric in all cases?

I don't have a position on blasphemy. I have a position on the expansion of Islamic totalitarian thought and its strategic threat to the United States, which I am obligated to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is my focus. However, yes, killing people for blasphemy is a bad thing, regardless of who does it. It's especially bad, however, when the killers decide that their jurisdiction doesn't end at their borders, and that anyone from a Seattle cartoonist to a Dutch film maker can be murdered for their lack of submission to one faith, because they are intent upon expanding their laws to govern all of us, not just the poor unfortunates who are already within their control. Now, do you understand my position, or do I have to accept that you don't and suggest that you take up a less complex topic to prevent further confusion on your part?

AmPat
11-15-2010, 04:14 PM
Ouch. The long paddle of ODY just smacked the backside of TNO. Who's next in line? Who next will espouse an idiotic position? Who will enter the Paddle Zone? Stay tuned, there are still a few contestants.
(Careful ODY, I suspect the lot of them enjoy a backside smack down).

The Night Owl
11-17-2010, 11:29 AM
Even if Jesus' pronouncements of peace were not a deliberate repudiation of Old Testament violence, the admonitions to turn the other cheek and embrace peace stand alone as calls away from violence, which would mark a significant change in doctrine.

So, God changed his mind? That doesn't sound right.

Jesus' big idea was that it's a mistake to think of the law as providing a complete path to salvation. In other words, Jesus wouldn't have had a problem with killing people for blasphemy but he would have had a problem with people thinking that in doing so they are sanctified, the argument being that humans are wretched no matter what they do. But Jesus was all for the law as a means for managing Earthly concerns.


However, yes, killing people for blasphemy is a bad thing, regardless of who does it.

So, if the death penalty for blasphemy is bad in all cases then can we say that the God of the Bible was wrong for having instituted it in Old Testament times?


Now, this is to distinguish between violence between, say, David and Saul, or Cain and Abel, i.e., individual acts which are not the result of divine commandment.

The standard you seem to think Bill Warner is using seems reasonable but I don't get the sense that it's the one Bill Warner outlined. Bill Warner is a lot more vague than you are about how we are to define political violence.

Rebel Yell
11-17-2010, 11:39 AM
Night Owl, I am going to ask you two questions. They are both simple yes or no questions. There is no need to elaborate with a mile long post that can be condensed to one word.


1. Do you think the death penalty is warranted in this case?

2. Would you be making this same argument regarding the Muslim faith if Christians were going to murder a Muslim woman for blasphemy?

wilbur
11-17-2010, 11:51 AM
The violence of the Old Testament is irrelevent to the New Testament, as there are a number of practices which went by the wayside in the transition from Judaism to Christianity.

What about the violence of the Torah? Jews have no NT with which to temper its barbarity.

They've got to deal with Leviticus and Deuteronomy without the benefit of the sermon on the mount. If they stayed true to its literal word, they'd be stoning their kids to death for disobedience.

I mean.. if we're judging religions by their holy books here, well... they all smell like shit.

But its just as easy to massage "Jihad" into "spiritual struggle", or something similar - as millions of peaceful Muslims do - as it is to massage "stone he who lay with man, as man lays with woman", into something like, "wag your finger disapprovingly at homosexuals".

AmPat
11-17-2010, 12:38 PM
What about the violence of the Torah? Jews have no NT with which to temper its barbarity.

They've got to deal with Leviticus and Deuteronomy without the benefit of the sermon on the mount. If they stayed true to its literal word, they'd be stoning their kids to death for disobedience.

I mean.. if we're judging religions by their holy books here, well... they all smell like shit.

But its just as easy to massage "Jihad" into "spiritual struggle", or something similar - as millions of peaceful Muslims do - as it is to massage "stone he who lay with man, as man lays with woman", into something like, "wag your finger disapprovingly at homosexuals".
Touche'!

Gotta watch out for those terroristic Jews. They make me nervous enough to ask for an airline seat next to the muslim traveller.:rolleyes:

wilbur
11-17-2010, 02:46 PM
Touche'!

Gotta watch out for those terroristic Jews. They make me nervous enough to ask for an airline seat next to the muslim traveller.:rolleyes:

Well, the lack of terrorist Jews is exactly my point - the situations that lead to fundamentalist radicalization and subsequent violence is obviously much more complex than the content of religious texts - so a simplistic analysis of "incidents of political violence", like the one presented in this thread, hardly suffice to tell us much of anything.

Odysseus
11-17-2010, 04:22 PM
So, God changed his mind? That doesn't sound right.

Jesus' big idea was that it's a mistake to think of the law as providing a complete path to salvation. In other words, Jesus wouldn't have had a problem with killing people for blasphemy but he would have had a problem with people thinking that in doing so they are sanctified, the argument being that humans are wretched no matter what they do. But Jesus was all for the law as a means for managing Earthly concerns.

So, if the death penalty for blasphemy is bad in all cases then can we say that the God of the Bible was wrong for having instituted it in Old Testament times?

Ah, so your sole concern was to get me to go after the God of the Bible? Kind of a one-trick-pony aren't you? Pass...:rolleyes:


The standard you seem to think Bill Warner is using seems reasonable but I don't get the sense that it's the one Bill Warner outlined. Bill Warner is a lot more vague than you are about how we are to define political violence.
Read the article. It couldn't be clearer.

What about the violence of the Torah? Jews have no NT with which to temper its barbarity.

They've got to deal with Leviticus and Deuteronomy without the benefit of the sermon on the mount. If they stayed true to its literal word, they'd be stoning their kids to death for disobedience.

I mean.. if we're judging religions by their holy books here, well... they all smell like shit.

But its just as easy to massage "Jihad" into "spiritual struggle", or something similar - as millions of peaceful Muslims do - as it is to massage "stone he who lay with man, as man lays with woman", into something like, "wag your finger disapprovingly at homosexuals".
Judaism has a number of books after the Torah. The whole point of the book of Esther is living in a land in which Jews are not the dominant power, to give one example. Maccabees describes a conquest only after the Greek provocations of demanding that Jews abandon God in favor of Zeus, a violation of the First Commandment. And nothing in the Torah commands what was described as political violence, i.e., violence done to the other, beyond the conquest of Israel. After that, the Jews can live in peace with other nations, and are only obligated to defend themselves. There is no incitement to seek conversions.

Well, the lack of terrorist Jews is exactly my point - the situations that lead to fundamentalist radicalization and subsequent violence is obviously much more complex than the content of religious texts - so a simplistic analysis of "incidents of political violence", like the one presented in this thread, hardly suffice to tell us much of anything.
Only if you are intent on not learning much of anything.

3rd-try
11-18-2010, 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilbur
Well, the lack of terrorist Jews is exactly my point - the situations that lead to fundamentalist radicalization and subsequent violence is obviously much more complex than the content of religious texts - so a simplistic analysis of "incidents of political violence", like the one presented in this thread, hardly suffice to tell us much of anything.

I've never seen so much nuancing, sidestepping, etc. to avoid the obvious in my life.
I've tried to understand the reasoning, but when reality just refuses to back one's position, over and over, there comes a point when it has to be considered.

Odysseus
11-18-2010, 02:57 PM
I've never seen so much nuancing, sidestepping, etc. to avoid the obvious in my life.
I've tried to understand the reasoning, but when reality just refuses to back one's position, over and over, there comes a point when it has to be considered.

Clearly, you've never read one of Wilbur's posts before. Here's a link to another thread (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=32420) where he set the gold standard for evasion. Enjoy.

The Night Owl
11-19-2010, 05:25 PM
Ah, so your sole concern was to get me to go after the God of the Bible? Kind of a one-trick-pony aren't you? Pass...:rolleyes:


If you think that killing people for blasphemy is bad in all cases then you already have gone after the God of the Bible. Nice job on that front. I just wanted to make sure you understand the implications of condemning Muslims for killing blasphemers.

The Night Owl
11-19-2010, 05:30 PM
Night Owl, I am going to ask you two questions. They are both simple yes or no questions. There is no need to elaborate with a mile long post that can be condensed to one word.


1. Do you think the death penalty is warranted in this case?

2. Would you be making this same argument regarding the Muslim faith if Christians were going to murder a Muslim woman for blasphemy?

1. No.
2. Yes.

Odysseus
11-19-2010, 06:43 PM
If you think that killing people for blasphemy is bad in all cases then you already have gone after the God of the Bible. Nice job on that front. I just wanted to make sure you understand the implications of condemning Muslims for killing blasphemers.
While I am grateful for your concern about my understanding of the implications, please understand that your agenda isn't mine, and that I'm less far concerned with the practices of ancient Israelites than I am with modern Muslims, who are currently operating a global war to advance Sharia and destroy the west. However, if you feel that using a cheap rhetorical trick to get me to condemn a 2,000 year old practice justifies your time, be my guest, but but unless you plan to strap on a bomb and shout "Allahu Akbar" before detonating in a crowd, your religious convictions or lack of them are of no interest to me.

Lanie
12-12-2010, 11:28 PM
You have a really low bar set for "outrage". I made a mild comment. My mild comment was observational and accurate. Much more has been made in the press when gay men are the object of Islamic law. Women, Christians, Druze, and agnostics don't feel much love from the international community, let alone the professional advocacy community.

I've always made a big deal about it whenever somebody gets drastically punished over something "little" and so forth. The first time I ever saw an execution of a woman who had supposedly committed adultry on TV, I wanted the Taliban dead just for that.