Is Religious Bigotry off the table?

[Bells]

Firstly, I posted a, far from exhaustive, list of Islamic countries with Blasphemy Laws. While some of the countries, like KSA, are dictatorships, many others like Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran etc... are republics. You can't have such a wide ranging Islamic Law without widespread support. Blasphemy Laws do have widespread support. As a matter of fact, many Islamic countries want Islam to play a larger role in politics, not lesser.

Maybe you should see what the local media say of it? Seeing that we are watching their laws more closely than they are...

Most Indonesians are perhaps rather oblivious or rather ignorant regarding the case. Considering it is not on the headlines and the complicity of jargons used in the case.

However, we can be sure if explained properly, the public will want the abolition of the blasphemy law.


http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/02/11/blasphemy-law-a-shackle-indonesian-people.html
​

I ask for your claims that over 1.5 billion people support bigoted blasphemy laws and you provide..... nothing that has anything to do with it.

*Chuckle*

Lets look at Pakistan as a prime example. You claim overwhelming or "widespread support" for it? A rally with 50,000 of the right religious sectors in Pakistan supporting it! Overwhelming! Must mean that all must support it, correct?

The Pakistan Minorities' Democratic Movement, which has 51,500 members and affiliates in 47 districts, has started a signature campaign for the repeal of the blasphemy laws. "Since July 16, 2009, we have collected over 200,000 signatures," said party chairman Atif Jamil Paggan.


http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48736
​

Hmmmm.....

That's 131 MILLION in Pakistan alone. Nearly 75 MILLION Indonesians support DEATH. My Gods! We're talking about taking someone out and murdering them. Jabeezus Bells, this isn't a little slap in on the wrist here, this is complicit support for Blasphemy Discrimination it's out and out MURDER.

And yet, support for the death penalty in the US is..?

Look, I deplore the situation in Pakistan. The assassination of Salmaan Taseer, for example, and the support his killer received before he committed the act and after is sickening. The point that you cannot quite grasp is that reacting by calling them all bigots, when they clearly are not, is only giving strength to the religious right who have such a strong hold on the Government. By labeling all Muslims as bigots you malign even those trying to combat it. In 2009, over 200,000 people signed a petition to repeal the blasphemy laws that were imposed on the country by a dictator.

I have to say, I feel amused that you are so obsessed with a term such as "Kafir" in light of the actual problems that the world community faces, or the plight of Pakistanis. The laws in Pakistan, for example, is being used in petty neighbourhood disputes. But it is not so much the law that is the issue, but the religious extremists living in small communities. You see, the High Court in Pakistan throws out blasphemy cases on appeal. They never get anywhere. The danger comes from the extremist who lead attacks on the accused individuals and their supporters.

For all that, there is less religion behind the blasphemy furore than meets the eye. Critics say the law is, often as not, used as a tool of coercion against vulnerable minorities, or to settle petty disputes, or both. Typically, disputes culminate in one man claiming that his enemy burned pages from the Qur'an – even though it is a mystery why anyone would choose to do so in a religion-obsessed country such as Pakistan. Many victims of the blasphemy law, in fact, are Muslim.

When Christians are targeted, the motivation is often an ancient subcontinental prejudice . Christians have traditionally worked as cleaners and sweepers; many Muslims still consider them "unclean". "This whole business about religion is just a decoy, a smokescreen," said Ali Dayan Hasan of Human Rights Watch. "It's often a case of simple caste prejudice."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/08/salmaan-taseer-blasphemy-pakistan-bibi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
​

As one prominent Pakistani puts it:

Every year extremism gets worse, our society becomes more radicalised and the bloodshed grows. This is how you must see the context of this assassination. Society is now so polarised that because Taseer criticised the blasphemy law he was seen as criticising Islam. But that was not what he said. This assassination would not have happened before the "war on terror".

Imams of different sects are being killed now, and mosques and churches bombed. The fanaticism keeps getting worse. As disturbing as Taseer's assassination is, just as disturbing is the way his assassin has become a hero. That is why this whole thing is so dangerous, it shows where we are headed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/09/pakistan-implode-america-leave-afghanistan?intcmp=239
​

In short, the more you back them into a corner, the more extremist you create. The more you bomb them, the more extremists you create.

But more importantly, the more you berate the whole, the more power you take from activists and Imams trying to combat this. By labeling all Pakistanis as bigots, those trying to combat it are deemed almost traitors. So take your active Islamaphobia and shove it. The real and greater picture is one where people's lives are at risk for daring to speak out because of people like you.

 

[Michael]

Bells, I completely agree that the more people are backed into a corner, the more they will fight back. Which is why I say we need to work on our own societies and do so through the education process. I'd like to see the role of Mon-Fri religious-based schools reduced, or eliminated (weekend schooling will have to be given a pass, for now). And I'd like to see the topic of religious intolerance broached.


That said, the vast majority of Pakistani DO support the Death Penalty for Apostasy. The same was true of Egyptians. Anyway, you asked for the Stats and I provided them showing millions of Muslims not only support intoelrance but 100s of millions even think Apostates should be murdered. I mean, M.U.R.D.E.R.E.D!!!
*Eeeeeegads! *
The point being many millions of Muslims openly support "Death to the Apostate". Whether you are in favor of the Death Penalty or not is a separate issue. Apostates should NOT be punished in ANY FORM WHATSOEVER. No one can will themselves to believe in Allah. Once you've come to conclusion faith in Xenu is silly, even asinine, then that's it. Your conscious intellect will not allow you return to thinking Xenu is real. It's the same thing with Santa Clause. As an adult you can't "make" yourself believe He's real, that He knows what you're thinking, He's making a list of whose Naught and Nice and He'll give you a reward if you're Nice. It's just not possible to rationally convince yourself. He, many children think Santa, and Gods, are silly and can't be convinced otherwise.




Now, as we seemingly agree to some of this. What I want to know is WHY? Why is it, do you suppose, so many people support punishing Apostasy?
What's their rational for wanting to punish a person for not believing in Allah? Or for thinking there's a contemporary Prophet?
Why would anyone want to punish someone for the crime of thinking something so benign as this?

 

[Bells]

Yeah, that was clear the first time around, thanks.

But I find the whole premise of an entire city being holy as fairly preposterous. An inner sanctum in a temple: sure. That's a relatively limited area, well within the abilities of a small collection of clergy to monitor and ensure the holiness of. But an entire city, slums and sewage treatment plants and seedy neighborhoods and all? Seems a bit of a stretch, unless the "holiness" means simply that only people of the "correct" faith live there. Which is about all it does seem to mean, frankly.

Moreover, let me make it clear that I do not view the prohibition on unbelievers as violating the sanctity of holy spaces with their mere presense as benign or acceptable, whether it's Mormons or Hindus or whoever. But extending such supremacism to the level of sealing off entire cities - hell, the entire country is overtly hostile to the "wrong" faiths - is on another level entirely. Supremacism doesn't become okay just because it's part of some recognized religious faith: rather the opposite.

So you wish to determine the geographical size of what is deemed holy now?

Okay..

Do you know what I find most disturbing about Mecca?

The officially-approved form of Islam in Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, is hostile to any reverence given to historical or religious places of significance for fear that it may give rise to idolatry. As a consequence, under Saudi rule, the city has suffered from considerable destruction of its physical heritage and it has been estimated that since 1985 about 95% of Mecca's historic buildings, most over a thousand years old, have been demolished.[31]

Historic sites of religious importance which have been destroyed by the Saudis include five of the renowned “Seven Mosques” initially built by Muhammad’s daughter and four of his “greatest Companions”: Masjid Abu Bakr, Masjid Salman al-Farsi, Masjid Umar ibn al-Khattab, Masjid Sayyida Fatima bint Rasulillah and Masjid Ali ibn Abu Talib.[32]

It has been reported that there now are fewer than 20 structures remaining in Mecca that date back to the time of Muhammad. Other buildings that have been destroyed include the house of Khadijah, the wife of the Prophet, demolished to make way for public lavatories; the house of Abu Bakr, the Prophet's companion, now the site of the local Hilton hotel; the house of Ali-Oraid, the grandson of the Prophet, and the Mosque of abu-Qubais, now the location of the King's palace in Mecca.[33]

The ostensible reason for much of the destruction of historic buildings has been for the construction of hotels, appartments, parking lots and other infrastructure facilities for Hajj pilgrims. However, many have been destroyed without any such reason. For example, when the house of Ali-Oraid, the grandson of the Muhammed was discovered and excavated, King Fahd himself ordered that it be bulldozed in case it should become a pilgrimage site.


(Source)
​

In short, the Saudis are getting away with destroying important religious sites and parts of their religious heritage. And you want to complain that non-Muslims can't go there?

Kind of pales in comparison to the destruction of religious and historical sites to build a toilet block, don't you think?

That's circular. The rationale for exclusivity was that it's a holy space, and that's why people go there. It can't also be that the extent of the holiness depends on how many people then show up.

And let's, again, bear in mind that a big part of the theological reason for the place's holiness is that it represents the replacement of a secular, inclusive space with an exclusivist, Muslim-dominated one. The supremacism on display here is not even covert - it's central to the veneration, and openly aknowledged and celebrated. And that is ugly.

It is their holy site and their choice as decided by Mohammed after many were slaughtered there while on their pilgrimage. I don't agree with it, but it is their choice.

And they'd still be a bunch of separate, private properties that don't require anyone to be barred from an entire city, or really much of any noteworthy imposition on anyone (non-Mormon relatives who can't attend Mormon weddings is about the only thing I can think of, but even that is not some blanket imposition on the general public). There is no corresponding imposition to Mecca/SA, coming from the Mormons. SLC is a normal city, with all manner of people of various faiths living together. That the Mormons have some small private space that they gather in once a week for a few hours is not even remotely comparable to barring everyone else from an entire city.

But again, that is their choice. The Vatican is closed to all unless by express invitation. As for Mecca, the reason to make it Muslim only I guess was a good idea at the time. It is not for anyone to dictate what they do with their land and who they allow on it.

And at the rate it's currently going, all the historical sites will have been destroyed anyway.. to make way for hotels and toilet blocks.

Yeah, real cute. I'll recall your gleeful endorsement of segregated highways for keeping unclean non-believers away from one's Holy Land, next time the issue of settlements come up.

You've no idea how cute.

I will, of course, expect you, Michael and Geoff to be the strongest opponents against Israel's immigration laws which allows the right of return and migration into Israel based on religious bigotry.

Hell, you should be screaming about Israel to be honest, and screaming against the bigotry that prevents migration to a whole country based on religion alone.

We're still talking about Mecca, right? Visitors cannot enter the city at all - the "inner sanctum" is the entire city limits.

It is a holy site, based on the history of the site itself.

Granted, the site itself has been expanded by huge amounts by the Saudi's, which is something that should be taken up with them directly. The city itself was much smaller originally.

Yes, one that goes around Mecca, and another that goes to it. Look at the signs - the one route goes to Mecca, the other to Riyadh.

Yes. I can read the signs.

I'm hoping that the above was a poorly-executed attempt at a troll, or some sort of self-effacing joke, or something. Because if that was a serious response, it's one of the stupidest I've ever seen. Like, in the "am I wasting my time talking to a 6-year-old?" category of facepalm.

I have been having facepalm moments often while participating in this debate actually.

And since I do not expect my leaders to hold "Christian only values," that does not apply to me. So how about you actually deal with what I've said, and in the meantime, stuff all of the nationalist browbeating back up your ass? Probably makes a decent troll when used on actual Christian nationalists, I'm sure, but what sort of foolish amateur would try such a tack against the likes of me?

And who are you?

You are also denied entry to the Vatican proper. But you do not complain there? If you come to Australia, you would be denied the right to enter many Aboriginal religious sites.. no complaints from you about that either. I am sure you would also be restricted from entering many areas in the US because it is religiously sacred to the Native population of that area..

Your Government, I will assume from your deserving manner, that you are American, is selected by the populace and one of the important factors for the majority is that they believe in God. Do you see the irony of this whole debate?

We have at least one complaining about the word "kafir" and viewing it as being somehow the same as "nigger". He can't even answer if System of a Down's use of the word is racist when they sing the same song as Wu-Tan Clan..

Isn't that sort of broad-brush strawmannery supposed to be the sort of thing that you oppose, at least when applied to whichever identity groups you've elected yourself savior of? A little consistency would be nice, if you expect all the heroic posturing to impress anybody.

You mean the broad brush being used in this thread to say that the majority of over 1.5 billion Muslims are all bigots and support blasphemy laws that result in death penalties being handed down by local religious courts?

Funny that, huh?

Indeed, but it's worse in some places than in others. In some cases, incomparably so - while we're all duly outraged that some tool in Australia might suggest a ban on Muslim immigration (and no doubt fail at such), this doesn't compare with Saudi Arabia's long-standing de facto ban on non-Muslim immigration. SA is a state that expressly forbids the public practice of any other religion or the burial of non-Muslims on Saudi soil.

And yet, they are deemed allies and no one says a word against the practice.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

That a liberal democracy will inevitably contain some reactionary elements does not make it comparable to a theocracy that openly, proudly discriminates (and has for generations). Obviously - you'd have to be really dumb to go in for such an equivocation.

One of our former Prime Ministers won an election after he portrayed boat people, trying to flee a sinking boat and saving their children by making sure they got safely overboard, as the type of people who would throw their own children into open sea to be allowed into the country.. The truth, unfortunately, became known after the election. The level of Islamaphobia rises and it is not just in Australia. Look at your last Presidential election where fears of Obama being a Muslim (apparently that would make him the ultimate evil) resulted in McCain's now famous 'he is not a Muslim, he is a good man' comment to one of the uneducated masses who went to his rallies.

So you've again raised no more issue than the one of whether you really are as dumb as you act, or if you just think your audience is.

Sorry if my pointing out that there is also bigotry and intolerance against Muslims as well. I know it's raining down on your little 'bash Muslims' thread, but if you don't like it, you can shove it where the sun does not shine.

You, Michael and Geoff have not raised any more points than the likes of Buffalo Roam and Sandy have raised and continue to raise on this forum. You don't like being labeled a bigot? The solution is simple and yes, quite dumb.. stop acting like one. Even you, oh so mighty intelligent being that you are, should not be so dumb as to be offended when you make yourself known as being intolerant on this forum.

As Sam succintly pointed out. Kafir is used to describe non-believers (much as the English language uses 'heathen' in the same manner). If you are offended by that word, she can refer to you as a Muslim. Problem solved really. Surely if you are not a 'non believer' you must then be a believer and thus, a Muslim and should find no offense in being refered to as a Muslim.

 

[Bells]

Bells, I completely agree that the more people are backed into a corner, the more they will fight back.

I don't think you quite understand.

The more we accuse and abuse, the more turn to extremism. There are tens to thousands working on the ground in Pakistan, for example, to fight extremism and to try to repeal the blasphemy laws, majority of them Muslim. Their fight is made much harder by outsiders wrongly proclaiming that all Pakistanis support such laws or beliefs. They do not.

The fear of religious extremism in Pakistan is real and those people have reason to fear. Do you know why Salmaan Taseer was assassinated? You are and were so keen on concentrating on Aasia Bibi that you utterly disregarded his assassination. After all, he's just another Muslim, right? He's one of 'them'.. A Muslim and therefore a bigot.

Mr Taseer was assassinated by an elite policeman who was one of many guarding him. His killer shot him 27 times as the other elite policemen watched on, and then handed them his gun before he was arrested. Mr Taseer's crime? He, a Muslim and a very prominent politician, stood up for Mrs Bibi and visited her in prison along with his wife and daughter and promised to help her and promised her that he would see to the defeat of what he deemed the "black law" (Pakistan's anti-blasphemy laws). He had his photo taken with her and made sure that word got out of his support. He knew the risks and the dangers, but he, a Muslim, did it anyway. Shortly after he was assassinated. His killer was clear. He killed him because of his stance against such laws. Others who openly supported Taseer and even religious leaders (all Muslims) have had to go into hiding out of fear for their lives and that of their families.. And they have reason to fear.

And that is what got to me about your debate Michael. Muslims like Taseer are dying for taking a stand against the blasphemy laws and to protect Bibi and others have had to go into hiding for their lives. But you have used a broad brush and disregarded those who are paying the real price and instead, labeled them as bigots as well, because they are Muslims.. That is what is galling about your argument in this forum. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Michael]

I don't think you quite understand.

The more we accuse and abuse, the more turn to extremism. There are tens to thousands working on the ground in Pakistan, for example, to fight extremism and to try to repeal the blasphemy laws, majority of them Muslim. Their fight is made much harder by outsiders wrongly proclaiming that all Pakistanis support such laws or beliefs. They do not.

The fear of religious extremism in Pakistan is real and those people have reason to fear. Do you know why Salmaan Taseer was assassinated? You are and were so keen on concentrating on Aasia Bibi that you utterly disregarded his assassination. After all, he's just another Muslim, right? He's one of 'them'.. A Muslim and therefore a bigot.

Mr Taseer was assassinated by an elite policeman who was one of many guarding him. His killer shot him 27 times as the other elite policemen watched on, and then handed them his gun before he was arrested. Mr Taseer's crime? He, a Muslim and a very prominent politician, stood up for Mrs Bibi and visited her in prison along with his wife and daughter and promised to help her and promised her that he would see to the defeat of what he deemed the "black law" (Pakistan's anti-blasphemy laws). He had his photo taken with her and made sure that word got out of his support. He knew the risks and the dangers, but he, a Muslim, did it anyway. Shortly after he was assassinated. His killer was clear. He killed him because of his stance against such laws. Others who openly supported Taseer and even religious leaders (all Muslims) have had to go into hiding out of fear for their lives and that of their families.. And they have reason to fear.

And that is what got to me about your debate Michael. Muslims like Taseer are dying for taking a stand against the blasphemy laws and to protect Bibi and others have had to go into hiding for their lives. But you have used a broad brush and disregarded those who are paying the real price and instead, labeled them as bigots as well, because they are Muslims.. That is what is galling about your argument in this forum. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

I know about Mr Taseer and I understand he took a stand for religious freedom and paid the ultimate price. I'm not altogether sure he was religious TTYTT. Anymore than any politician has to be. Yes, there are 10s of thousands of people in Pakistan that to see a change from Religious Apartheid to an open, transparent, secular democratic modern government. I fully support these people.



But, that's not my question to you. I want to know why it is, that 100s of millions of Muslims (the vast majority in some nations - the Statistics of which I provided) would support putting a person to Death for Apostasy? Surely you have some ideas as to why this IS the case? I'm curious about those ideas. We can both discuss the religious reasons for why, as well as support the 10s of thousands of people who want real change. Actually, it's important we address the underlying issues, or change isn't very likely to come, or be long lasting when it does arrive. There's nothing wrong delving deeper into the issue at hand.

 

[Bells]

I know about Mr Taseer and I understand he took a stand for religious freedom and paid the ultimate price. I'm not altogether sure he was religious TTYTT. Anymore than any politician has to be. Yes, there are 10s of thousands of people in Pakistan that to see a change from Religious Apartheid to an open, transparent, secular democratic modern government. I fully support these people.

Ya.. sure..

I find it curious that you would ignore the man who actually died as a result of this, who was assassinated. I find it insulting and bigoted that you could question his religious beliefs. What? Don't you think Muslims can be decent enough to want to help this woman?

If you supported him, you would not question his faith.

But, that's not my question to you. I want to know why it is, that 100s of millions of Muslims (the vast majority in some nations - the Statistics of which I provided) would support putting a person to Death for Apostasy?

No idea. Have you tried asking them?

But I would be curious about how many were surveyed and where or which regions of their countries they were from. Do you have a link to what you posted?

Your statistics still do not support the claims you have made in this thread however, and what I have been asking you about for several pages now.. That the majority of over 1.5 billion people support bigotry and blasphemy laws.

Surely you have some ideas as to why this IS the case?

I think those who hold such views or the pool indicates an increase in extremism, which is a great concern and the root cause of which needs to be addressed. Stop making life difficult for those trying to bring their respective countries back from the brink would be a good start, don't you think?

We can both discuss the religious reasons for why, as well as support the 10s of thousands of people who want real change. Actually, it's important we address the underlying issues, or change isn't very likely to come, or be long lasting when it does arrive. There's nothing wrong delving deeper into the issue at hand.

Of course we can. It is called religious extremism and it exists in all religious circles.

You don't want to delve Michael. You want to accuse and blame the whole for the actions of the few. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge those like Taseer who paid the ultimate price for fighting what you call 'bigotry'.. You, Mr who claims he walked the streets.. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge and praise a Muslim man for paying the ultimate fight for his country's fight against extremism.. Instead, you attempt to deny him his religion.. I mean you can't even acknowledge those like Javaid Ghamidi, an Islamic preacher who is now in hiding for his life for speaking out against extremism, not to mention Sherry Rehman who is also in hiding for speaking out.

Now that Taseer is gone, the question now is who will speak up for her. One possibility is the Islamic preacher Javaid Ghamidi. "If we don't speak up now, tomorrow we will not be able to say even the few things that we can today," he said on Dunya TV. But Ghamidi has long fled into exile, having received his own threats.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/05/pakistan-salman-taseer-liberal
​

That is the extent of your hatred Michael. As I said, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Michael]

Ya.. sure..

I find it curious that you would ignore the man who actually died as a result of this, who was assassinated. I find it insulting and bigoted that you could question his religious beliefs. What? Don't you think Muslims can be decent enough to want to help this woman?

If you supported him, you would not question his faith.


No idea. Have you tried asking them?

But I would be curious about how many were surveyed and where or which regions of their countries they were from. Do you have a link to what you posted?

Your statistics still do not support the claims you have made in this thread however, and what I have been asking you about for several pages now.. That the majority of over 1.5 billion people support bigotry and blasphemy laws.


I think those who hold such views or the pool indicates an increase in extremism, which is a great concern and the root cause of which needs to be addressed. Stop making life difficult for those trying to bring their respective countries back from the brink would be a good start, don't you think?


Of course we can. It is called religious extremism and it exists in all religious circles.

You don't want to delve Michael. You want to accuse and blame the whole for the actions of the few. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge those like Taseer who paid the ultimate price for fighting what you call 'bigotry'.. You, Mr who claims he walked the streets.. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge and praise a Muslim man for paying the ultimate fight for his country's fight against extremism.. Instead, you attempt to deny him his religion.. I mean you can't even acknowledge those like Javaid Ghamidi, an Islamic preacher who is now in hiding for his life for speaking out against extremism, not to mention Sherry Rehman who is also in hiding for speaking out.

Now that Taseer is gone, the question now is who will speak up for her. One possibility is the Islamic preacher Javaid Ghamidi. "If we don't speak up now, tomorrow we will not be able to say even the few things that we can today," he said on Dunya TV. But Ghamidi has long fled into exile, having received his own threats.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/05/pakistan-salman-taseer-liberal
​

That is the extent of your hatred Michael. As I said, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Actually pity is closer to my personal sentiment. I don't even think it's possible to "hate" people you've never met. It'd be like hating children - it just doesn't make sense. Imagine a small child gets hold of a gun and shoots her friend in the face. Which happens now and again in the USA (due to all the guns floating about - it's going to happen). You certainly wouldn't "hate" this child. You would hate the pervasiveness of guns though.

The only reason I thought Mr Taseer was not religious was because I read he was not religious. As are many of the ruling elite in Pakistan, and TTYTT most countries. I'm sure ther've been more than one Pope who had zero belief in a God. It's common for people who rule other people, and pretend to know the will of the Gods, to have little or no belief in said Gods.

As for evidence I've posted the available contemporary evidence again and again on this thread. Which shows a large percentage of Muslims are bigoted in their view of non-Muslims. Even a child could understand that when 30% of Indonesians call for the outright MURDER of apostates, a much larger percentage would simply like to see them legally banned. THAT my dear Bells, is bigotry. I've never called for Islam to be banned. Only education to be promoted. Most Indonesians support legally curtailing conversion away from Islam through much less violent means, such as fines and prison. They're at the stage in the USA when some Blacks were free, and others were Slaves. Will Indonesians take a stand? Not until the majority realize Religious Apartheid is morally wrong. Which is why we still see the Blasphemy Laws. As long as we have Apologists whimpering away - well, we'll continue to see Religious Apartheid.

Lastly, Pakistan has a >70% of the population (Pew Poll you can link off the graph) that out right call for Death to the Apostate. While most Muslims in the world don't call for outright death, they more than happily support Religious Apartheid as is evidenced by the pervasiveness of Blasphemy Laws. Even so-called "moderate" countries like Egypt have overwhelming support for Death.

Death.

Death.

Don't blame the Kaffir for not appreciating such a thing Bells.

Death.

Wow, in the year 2011 so many, otherwise normal, people are calling for the death to the Kaffir Apostate. You have to give it to Islam on that one. It sure does a great job of instilling Religious Bigotry very deep into the average Egyptian Muslim's psyche. As evidenced by the Pew Poll in Egypt - among other countries. Don't blame me Bells, I'm not calling for the Death of Muslim Apostates. I'm calling for the Education of ALL citizens and ONLY in my country.

Which seems reasonable to me. We don't want nor need that sort of Bigotry here.

 

[GeoffP]

I figured it out, You guys don't like other people thinking "You" are the dirty savage ones.

So our anger at being labeled filthy is because we secretly think you are. It's now about physical cleanliness instead of religious disbelief? Bells did even post the "no change underwear" link, I suppose. What it comes down to for people like you is that you simply hate that which you consider naij, and you're ignorant enough that you can't understand why we would take offense.

I ask for your claims that over 1.5 billion people support bigoted blasphemy laws and you provide..... nothing that has anything to do with it.

Actually, Michael has provided evidence of widespread conservatism in the views of majority Muslim countries. Who was the one who decided on the goalposts you're describing? Has he revised his stance?

And yet, support for the death penalty in the US is..?

Based on the violation of secular laws, not religious laws which no one in their right mind ought to be subject to.

As for those laws: yes, such cases get thrown out on appeal. But surely you realize that this is legal terrorism? It's part of the pressure that has been applied to religious minority communities for thousands of years, and it deserves unequivocal hatred.

When Christians are targeted, the motivation is often an ancient subcontinental prejudice . Christians have traditionally worked as cleaners and sweepers; many Muslims still consider them "unclean". "This whole business about religion is just a decoy, a smokescreen," said Ali Dayan Hasan of Human Rights Watch. "It's often a case of simple caste prejudice."

Giving the lie to ol' Empty's argument above.

The real and greater picture is one where people's lives are at risk for daring to speak out because of people like you.

You can't honestly think Michael's opinion is pushing these people. Is he bombing them? No, so that's out of the picture. And what is it that he's done? Well: speak out. So people's lives are at risk for daring to speak out because of people who speak out. That strikes me as the old choice about Islamic imperialism: if you defend yourselves - apparently extending to speech - then you only create more Islamism. Well, ok then: let's do that and have an honest discussion. Get it out into the light. Stand up and actually discuss it, instead of pretending there isn't a problem.

Hell, you should be screaming about Israel to be honest, and screaming against the bigotry that prevents migration to a whole country based on religion alone.

Shall I expect you to start screaming more loudly about Islamic intolerance, expressed over a range of 64 nations and 1.5 billion people, than Israel and its six million?

Your Government, I will assume from your deserving manner, that you are American, is selected by the populace and one of the important factors for the majority is that they believe in God.

And this is a bar that occurs in all nations, including those 64 I just mentioned.

We have at least one complaining about the word "kafir" and viewing it as being somehow the same as "nigger". He can't even answer if System of a Down's use of the word is racist when they sing the same song as Wu-Tan Clan..

Does that really strike you as a relevant comparison?

You mean the broad brush being used in this thread to say that the majority of over 1.5 billion Muslims are all bigots and support blasphemy laws that result in death penalties being handed down by local religious courts?

Just checking: ok, so you have gone from your original assertion that Michael was accusing all Muslims to his points on the wide support religious law enjoys in the Islamic world? I just want this point in stone.

As Sam succintly pointed out. Kafir is used to describe non-believers (much as the English language uses 'heathen' in the same manner). If you are offended by that word, she can refer to you as a Muslim. Problem solved really. Surely if you are not a 'non believer' you must then be a believer and thus, a Muslim and should find no offense in being refered to as a Muslim.[/QUOTE]

The more we accuse and abuse, the more turn to extremism. There are tens to thousands working on the ground in Pakistan, for example, to fight extremism and to try to repeal the blasphemy laws, majority of them Muslim. Their fight is made much harder by outsiders wrongly proclaiming that all Pakistanis support such laws or beliefs. They do not.

Okay: and who has made such an assertion? Is their work really being impeded in some way by the simple statement of the fact that religious law enjoys widespread support in Islamic countries? Isn't this part of what they're fighting against: the ignorance of the majority?

Others who openly supported Taseer and even religious leaders (all Muslims) have had to go into hiding out of fear for their lives and that of their families.. And they have reason to fear.

Very good. And maybe we should talk about why that is, instead of pretending there's no problem, off and on, depending on who we're talking about and when. Meanwhile, when an actual Islamist shows up, you hide your head. Is this what the discussion should be limited to?

 

[Bells]

The only reason I thought Mr Taseer was not religious was because I read he was not religious. As are many of the ruling elite in Pakistan, and TTYTT most countries. I'm sure ther've been more than one Pope who had zero belief in a God. It's common for people who rule other people, and pretend to know the will of the Gods, to have little or no belief in said Gods.

Still deny the man his beliefs..

Lovely!

As for evidence I've posted the available contemporary evidence again and again on this thread. Which shows a large percentage of Muslims are bigoted in their view of non-Muslims.

Michael, the pretty little images you posted without a single link does not show that.

Why do you refuse to post a single link?

Even a child could understand that when 30% of Indonesians call for the outright MURDER of apostates, a much larger percentage would simply like to see them legally banned. THAT my dear Bells, is bigotry. I've never called for Islam to be banned. Only education to be promoted. Most Indonesians support legally curtailing conversion away from Islam through much less violent means, such as fines and prison. They're at the stage in the USA when some Blacks were free, and others were Slaves. Will Indonesians take a stand? Not until the majority realize Religious Apartheid is morally wrong. Which is why we still see the Blasphemy Laws. As long as we have Apologists whimpering away - well, we'll continue to see Religious Apartheid.

You have not called for education. Bullshit! You have not called for anything aside from whining about being called a Kafir and because a woman refused to shake your hand.

I have asked you so many times now to provide proof that over 1.5 billion people support discrimination and bigotry and you have yet to provide any proof of your claims or provide a single link to survey's you have posted. So we cannot know the size of the survey pool, the area where the survey's were taken and when exactly it was done.

You are wailing about religious apartheid that you deny a man who was killed fighting against blasphemy laws his beliefs.. This is the extent of your own hatred. You read about his not being a believer? Where?

To be honest with you, I think you are lying. I think you have never heard of him or of the others who are now in hiding from the extremists.. Because you don't give a shit about the Muslims who are actually suffering about this. Hence why I have consistently asked you how you can possibly believe that over 1.5 billion people could believe in apartheid and bigotry when I know for a fact that is not the case. I know that the greater majority are living in fear in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, in fear of leaders who are fully supported by the West and who do nothing to curb the rising extremism within their borders. That is the fucking reality and you can't even acknowledge those people... What? Aren't they kafir enough for you to even consider them?

In your zeal against Islam in this thread and others, you have put those millions and millions of Muslims into the same boat as the extremist. All Muslims are the same to you, aren't they? You even go so far as to deny one who died for the cause in Pakistan, his beliefs..

And during all that, you have consistently failed to back up your claims that over 1.5 billion people support religious discrimination and bigotry. Either support your claims or I report you for trolling.

Do I make myself clear?

Lastly, Pakistan has a >70% of the population (Pew Poll you can link off the graph) that out right call for Death to the Apostate. While most Muslims in the world don't call for outright death, they more than happily support Religious Apartheid as is evidenced by the pervasiveness of Blasphemy Laws. Even so-called "moderate" countries like Egypt have overwhelming support for Death.

What link?

There is no link.

There is no year or date of the survey or the number of those surveyed or the location or areas of the groups surveyed.

You have provided nothing at all. You have consistently failed to back up your repeated claims in this thread (since page 2 basically) that over 1.5 billion Muslims support discrimination and bigotry. Even after repeated requests that you do so.

Your dishonesty in this thread is noted. But it ends now. The rules of this forum are very clear. You have got to back up your claims with links at the very least.

Death.

Death.

Don't blame the Kaffir for not appreciating such a thing Bells.

Death.

Wow, in the year 2011 so many, otherwise normal, people are calling for the death to the Kaffir Apostate. You have to give it to Islam on that one. It sure does a great job of instilling Religious Bigotry very deep into the average Egyptian Muslim's psyche. As evidenced by the Pew Poll in Egypt - among other countries. Don't blame me Bells, I'm not calling for the Death of Muslim Apostates. I'm calling for the Education of ALL citizens and ONLY in my country.

You can stop being full of yourself and provide some links.

Which seems reasonable to me. We don't want nor need that sort of Bigotry here.

No. We actually do not need your sort of bigotry here.

Actually, Michael has provided evidence of widespread conservatism in the views of majority Muslim countries. Who was the one who decided on the goalposts you're describing? Has he revised his stance?

No. He provided images that are not linked, we don't know the dates or locations and areas where the surveys occured. We do not know the sample numbers either.

And his claims was that over 1.5 billion people supported discrimination and bigotry. He has yet to provide proof for those claims.

What he has done is show what we can assume is the result of a survey, we don't know when, that discusses whether people want Islam to play a role in politics and then has taken the results from that and stated that it means the greater majority of Muslims (above 80 to 90% is how he put it), support blasphemy laws. A bit of a leap if there ever was one and all completely unfounded and unsupported.

I linked him the report of a march of 50,000 or so people who marched for the blasphemy laws in Pakistan and then linked him another article that had a survey with over 200,000 back in 2009 who were against the blasphemy laws in Pakistan.. and that was just the tip of the iceberg. So if we were going to look at representative figures, those against it rate much higher than those for it. But no, he comes out and claims, without links or anything, that 90% of Pakistanis support blasphemy laws..

And that figure comes from where? His anal cavity maybe?

Based on the violation of secular laws, not religious laws which no one in their right mind ought to be subject to.

So secular laws putting men, women and even mentally disabled individuals to death is better than religious laws that give people the death penalty for blasphemy but are yet to have a state sanctioned death penalty for the 'crime' to take place? Okay..

As for those laws: yes, such cases get thrown out on appeal. But surely you realize that this is legal terrorism? It's part of the pressure that has been applied to religious minority communities for thousands of years, and it deserves unequivocal hatred.

No one is saying it doesn't. But the blasphemy laws were put in place by a dictator in the 1980's, after being introduced by the British. Prior to that, such crimes were not common in Pakistan. And since then, since all Western support was ramped up in the war on terror, extremism is on the rise in Pakistan.. and Muslims and non Muslims alike are being terrorised by Western backed Governments who fund their armed forces... Geez, who'd have thunk it.

Giving the lie to ol' Empty's argument above.

YOu mean by pointing out that the problem in countries like Pakistan and India is the caste system?

You do realise that religious violence is probably more prevalent in India than in Pakistan, right?

You can't honestly think Michael's opinion is pushing these people. Is he bombing them? No, so that's out of the picture. And what is it that he's done? Well: speak out. So people's lives are at risk for daring to speak out because of people who speak out. That strikes me as the old choice about Islamic imperialism: if you defend yourselves - apparently extending to speech - then you only create more Islamism. Well, ok then: let's do that and have an honest discussion. Get it out into the light. Stand up and actually discuss it, instead of pretending there isn't a problem.

Speak out against what?

He is speaking out against Muslims in general. He can't even accept that a Muslim who died supporting a Christian woman and trying to combat extremism in his country is a Muslim. He discounts the imams and other religious and political figures who are putting their lives at risk.. and the day to day Muslims.. millions and millions of people.. around the world.. fighting extremism.. What does he do? Ah yes, '90% of Muslims in Pakistan and 80% in Indonesia support bigotry and discrimination'..

Are they not Kafir enough? Or are they expendable? More expendable than a woman who in all likelihood will not be put to death by the State and will be given assylum in another country? Is a Christian worth more than a Muslim?

Taseer was vital to the debate regarding Bibi. The man was assassinated for supporting and trying to help her. He was also a Muslim. And surprise surprise, Michael can't even bring himself to mention him (you'd have thought he would have, wouldn't you?) and when I bring him into the discussion, Michael tries to deny the man his religious beliefs... You want bigotry? That's bigotry right there.

But the collective voices of Islamaphobes like Michael and others in this thread create greater pressure on the millions and millions of Muslims who are endangering their lives to fight extremism. That is the reality.

Shall I expect you to start screaming more loudly about Islamic intolerance, expressed over a range of 64 nations and 1.5 billion people, than Israel and its six million?

Oh I scream about it. I just don't paint them all with the same broad brush like Michael and you do.

And this is a bar that occurs in all nations, including those 64 I just mentioned.

Really? All nations, huh?

The Prime Minister of Australia is an atheist living in a defacto relationship.

Funny that, huh?

Just checking: ok, so you have gone from your original assertion that Michael was accusing all Muslims to his points on the wide support religious law enjoys in the Islamic world? I just want this point in stone.

I'm sorry, are you now claiming that he is not? Remember you disagreed with his wording and how he did use that broad brush? Selective memory?

You did not type this?

I don't agree with Michael when he says "Muslims"


(Geoff - Post # 9)
​

Hmmm?

Okay: and who has made such an assertion? Is their work really being impeded in some way by the simple statement of the fact that religious law enjoys widespread support in Islamic countries? Isn't this part of what they're fighting against: the ignorance of the majority?

But is it the majority?

As one article I linked earlier states, in Pakistan at least, the majority live in fear and terror and another discusses how Pakistan has come to this junction. Really, read the links provided.

Very good. And maybe we should talk about why that is, instead of pretending there's no problem, off and on, depending on who we're talking about and when.

No one is saying there isn't a problem. I am saying the problem does not exist solely in Islam and it certainly does not exist in a vacuum.

Meanwhile, when an actual Islamist shows up, you hide your head.

Who is the Islamist?

The man I told to wear a pink tutu and dance Swan Lake? Heh!

If he's an Islamist by your use of the word, then I am a nun.

But thank you for the chuckle that gave me.

 

[GeoffP]

All or nothing

You have provided nothing at all. You have consistently failed to back up your repeated claims in this thread (since page 2 basically) that over 1.5 billion Muslims support discrimination and bigotry. Even after repeated requests that you do so.

Your dishonesty in this thread is noted. But it ends now. The rules of this forum are very clear. You have got to back up your claims with links at the very least.

Bells: is this his exact claim? I saw a poll article just previous; I think that means he's saying there is widespread support - and there would seem to be - not that each and every Muslim supports bigotry and discrimination.

No. He provided images that are not linked, we don't know the dates or locations and areas where the surveys occured. We do not know the sample numbers either.

I expect it's related to this article, although some of the numbers are at variance with one of the last polls from Egypt. The article describes an n = 8,000; not huge, but there's been a few of these in the last few years and they all indicate fairly substantial support for preserving the bridge between religion and politics.

What he has done is show what we can assume is the result of a survey, we don't know when, that discusses whether people want Islam to play a role in politics and then has taken the results from that and stated that it means the greater majority of Muslims (above 80 to 90% is how he put it)

Well, "80-90%" would probably be incorrect overall, yes. But it would be wrong to say that such support is insubstantial. Where has he given such a figure, and under what conditions?

So secular laws putting men, women and even mentally disabled individuals to death is better than religious laws that give people the death penalty for blasphemy but are yet to have a state sanctioned death penalty for the 'crime' to take place? Okay..

Well, yes, Bells. The first case might have misapplication, but it would be hard to repress minorities wholesale with the threat of it; if I commit a crime against you, it could be argued that I deserve punishment. But if I commit a 'crime against Allah'? Who the fuck is Allah? Will he show up to court? He's no one.

No one is saying it doesn't. But the blasphemy laws were put in place by a dictator in the 1980's, after being introduced by the British.

That's probably a more recent incarnation of it, Bells: as federal, universal law. Anti-apostate Islamic religious laws have existed since the last millenium, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Codification into a modern state's law would naturally be expected to occur later.

Prior to that, such crimes were not common in Pakistan.

I'm not sure this is so: what sources have detailed such trends?

And since then, since all Western support was ramped up in the war on terror, extremism is on the rise in Pakistan.. and Muslims and non Muslims alike are being terrorised by Western backed Governments who fund their armed forces... Geez, who'd have thunk it.

That might be; but even the federal huddud laws in Pakistan were instituted well before the war on terrorism. I don't see the relation.

You do realise that religious violence is probably more prevalent in India than in Pakistan, right?

Oh, of course: in India, you have two strong cultures in conflict. In Pakistan, you have what is essentially monoculture with a few terrified remnants. There's not much support there for armed face-off with the majority, especially since it doesn't seem to take much to touch off wholesale violence against the 'kaffir', and since the laws there protect the majority religion, not the minority.

Speak out against what?

:shrug: Islamism.

He is speaking out against Muslims in general. He can't even accept that a Muslim who died supporting a Christian woman and trying to combat extremism in his country is a Muslim.

He seems to have followed Mr. Taseer's case: I glanced back and his statement was that he wasn't sure Taseer was religious. I scanned Google a bit but didn't find much demonstrating or confirming his theism or atheism besides a description of him as Shia, which might be old or not and provided no insight into his state of belief.

Are they not Kafir enough? Or are they expendable? More expendable than a woman who in all likelihood will not be put to death by the State and will be given assylum in another country? Is a Christian worth more than a Muslim?

No, but there's inevitably more sympathy for a mother of four sentenced to die than for any dude. I feel much the same way; call it my internalized chauvinism or chivalrism. Taseer was an elected official who took a stand, rather than an some

But the collective voices of Islamaphobes like Michael and others in this thread create greater pressure on the millions and millions of Muslims who are endangering their lives to fight extremism. That is the reality.

Okay: assertions about 'other' posters on this thread aside - how do they create additional pressure? You're creating a scenario in which critics of Islamist inhumanitarianism create more Islamist inhumanitarianism by raising awareness of it, which is precisely the same thing that millions and millions of Muslims who are endangering their lives to fight extremism are doing: making one wonder what at all can be done about it, if it cannot be spoken of. What is Michael doing on this forum, specifically, that is increasing their risk? Will Chi run off and stab someone?

Oh I scream about it. I just don't paint them all with the same broad brush like Michael and you do.

Retract your assertion against me and include a full apology to me in your next post, or get reported. Sorry, but we're on the zero tolerance clause these days; I'm at the point in my life when I don't feel I need to put up with this kind of thing, intentional or otherwise.

I'm sorry, are you now claiming that he is not? Remember you disagreed with his wording and how he did use that broad brush? Selective memory?

You did not type this?

I don't agree with Michael when he says "Muslims"


(Geoff - Post # 9)
​

Hmmm?

I disagreed with his use of language: but his use of polls later is not indicative of universality. You also avoided the nuance of the complete post, which is still there to be seen.

Who is the Islamist?

The man I told to wear a pink tutu and dance Swan Lake? Heh!

Yes, your comic non-rebuttal certainly obviates the supremacy inherent in his description of Westerners and non-Muslims as filthy.

 

[Bells]

Bells: is this his exact claim? I saw a poll article just previous; I think that means he's saying there is widespread support - and there would seem to be - not that each and every Muslim supports bigotry and discrimination.

Poll from where? Where was taken?

How many were questioned?

A link would be nice, don't you think?

Or do you take things at face value?

I expect it's related to this article, although some of the numbers are at variance with one of the last polls from Egypt. The article describes an n = 8,000; not huge, but there's been a few of these in the last few years and they all indicate fairly substantial support for preserving the bridge between religion and politics.

Some of the numbers?

And 8000 to represent over 1.5 billion people?

Are you expecting everyone to take this seriously?

Well, "80-90%" would probably be incorrect overall, yes.

You think?

But it would be wrong to say that such support is insubstantial.

Well around 85% or so in one country - out of a sample of 8000 sampled from around the world - out of a world population of the religious group of over 1.5 billion..

Where has he given such a figure, and under what conditions?

I had him pinned down, stripped naked and whipping him, Geoff. Under what conditions indeed. Honesty, do you think I am torturing him?

This was linked in the previous post by the way. When something is underlined, it often means it is a link. Try clicking on it.

Well, yes, Bells. The first case might have misapplication, but it would be hard to repress minorities wholesale with the threat of it; if I commit a crime against you, it could be argued that I deserve punishment. But if I commit a 'crime against Allah'? Who the fuck is Allah? Will he show up to court? He's no one.

Just as your God does not exist, correct?

Tell me, is this the part where you respect their beliefs?

That's probably a more recent incarnation of it, Bells: as federal, universal law. Anti-apostate Islamic religious laws have existed since the last millenium, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Codification into a modern state's law would naturally be expected to occur later.

Read all the articles that I linked. The debate concerning the blasphemy laws in Pakistan has been raging for several years. It did not exist prior to the 80's in Pakistani law, unless you consider the British's use of it.

But its current use and support by some in Pakistan is seen to correlate with the rise of American and Western support of Pakistan.. Funny that, huh?

I'm not sure this is so: what sources have detailed such trends?

Pakistanis..

Do you not read the links provided in this thread?

That might be; but even the federal huddud laws in Pakistan were instituted well before the war on terrorism. I don't see the relation.

Maybe because you don't want to see it? After all, they're just a "bunch of fucking scumbags", aren't they?

Oh, of course: in India, you have two strong cultures in conflict. In Pakistan, you have what is essentially monoculture with a few terrified remnants. There's not much support there for armed face-off with the majority, especially since it doesn't seem to take much to touch off wholesale violence against the 'kaffir', and since the laws there protect the majority religion, not the minority.

And how did this come to be so?

Islamism.

Not the Christianity in Africa where countries are held to ransom by the Church if they promote safe sex, not against the Christian West attacking countries because a President thought God told him to.. Pales in comparison to "Islamism"..

He seems to have followed Mr. Taseer's case: I glanced back and his statement was that he wasn't sure Taseer was religious. I scanned Google a bit but didn't find much demonstrating or confirming his theism or atheism besides a description of him as Shia, which might be old or not and provided no insight into his state of belief.

Going to run with that like a child runs with scissors?

No, but there's inevitably more sympathy for a mother of four sentenced to die than for any dude. I feel much the same way; call it my internalized chauvinism or chivalrism. Taseer was an elected official who took a stand, rather than an some

So the Christian woman is more important and more deserving of sympathy than the Muslim man who was assassinated, the Muslim religious leaders who have gone into hiding for supporting and defending her against this law and the Muslim woman and politician who has openly supported her and Taseer in trying to get this law overturned.. who is also is at present, whereabouts unknown?

The others don't count or matter or deserve sympathy because...?

No, no bigotry there..

Okay: assertions about 'other' posters on this thread aside - how do they create additional pressure? You're creating a scenario in which critics of Islamist inhumanitarianism create more Islamist inhumanitarianism by raising awareness of it, which is precisely the same thing that millions and millions of Muslims who are endangering their lives to fight extremism are doing: making one wonder what at all can be done about it, if it cannot be spoken of. What is Michael doing on this forum, specifically, that is increasing their risk? Will Chi run off and stab someone?

Michael's voice is one of many who profess such things. He's like our local Glen Beck really.

What does Chi have to do with it?

Do you understand that we do not exist in a vacuum?

Retract your assertion against me and include a full apology to me in your next post, or get reported. Sorry, but we're on the zero tolerance clause these days; I'm at the point in my life when I don't feel I need to put up with this kind of thing, intentional or otherwise.

No. I will not retract. Tell me, do you think Mr Taseer is a fool and a bigot? Or is he just some "dude" not worthy of consideration? How about Mr Ghamidi and Ms Rehman?

I disagreed with his use of language: but his use of polls later is not indicative of universality.

I must be tired because I am reading that as it possibly should not be written..

His use of polls and your support of it and what you linked showed a sample taken from, I suspect several countries, totaling 8000 in all, out of over 1.5 billion people around the world..

Think about it Geoff..

His polls have no link, they also do not support the claims I was asking him to support.. many times now and which he has completely ignored.

I am still waiting for that substantiation from him. Where did he get 90% of Pakistanis and 85% of Indonesians from, for example? Surely there is a link somewhere? So why do you think he has consistently failed to provide any links to substantiate his claims?

Yes, your comic non-rebuttal certainly obviates the supremacy inherent in his description of Westerners and non-Muslims as filthy.

I have known Chi for a while and I also know of his history based on what he has told us on this forum many years ago (I think before you even joined). As I said, if he were as much of an Islamist as you claim him and the word to be, then I am a nun. No, really..

 

[GeoffP]

Accepting the unaccepted

Some of the numbers?

And 8000 to represent over 1.5 billion people?

Are you expecting everyone to take this seriously?

A poll of 8,000 people can be used to conclude nothing? I doubt this prospect, although I could be convinced otherwise; what level of representation is a correct one to gauge political and religious sentiments? Should we accept no polls at all then? What that poll and other suggest is that there's a significant undercurrent of support for religious law in several Islamic countries, which is probably bad.

Well around 85% or so in one country - out of a sample of 8000 sampled from around the world - out of a world population of the religious group of over 1.5 billion..

Which is pretty staggering, yes. They don't specify the implications of such support, but any even near-significant minority for stoning would strike me as a very, very bad figure.

I had him pinned down, stripped naked and whipping him, Geoff. Under what conditions indeed. Honesty, do you think I am torturing him?

This was linked in the previous post by the way. When something is underlined, it often means it is a link. Try clicking on it.

Well, yes: I did notice that. I even clicked it. It's just that it doesn't support your allegation that he thought 80-90% of all Muslims, everywhere, let alone all of them, everywhere ("all 1.5 billion", as you've said), for religious bigotry. Even giving so much as a percentage indicates by definition that he's not making an allegation of uniformity. So I don't think your position is supported on this element; sorry.

Just as your God does not exist, correct?

Tell me, is this the part where you respect their beliefs?

My position on their beliefs or anyone else's doesn't matter. You yourself have made quite broad statements of disbelief about my religion and others; this is your right, as it must be - presumably - mine to do so. I am not required, moreover, to respect the beliefs of anyone where it comes to the matter of law. So if your criticism is that I am not a Muslim, I suppose I must admit guilt on this particular. Then again, most people on the forum, including yourself since we must make this personal, are guilty of the same disrespect.

Read all the articles that I linked. The debate concerning the blasphemy laws in Pakistan has been raging for several years. It did not exist prior to the 80's in Pakistani law, unless you consider the British's use of it.

Sorry, but you've sort of missed my point about the institutionalization of such a law in the federal state that Pakistan has become, in comparison to about a millennium of Islamic religious law. I think you're splitting hairs on this one.

Maybe because you don't want to see it? After all, they're just a "bunch of fucking scumbags", aren't they?

This was an interesting comment: I'm not sure what you're attempting to argue. I asked what the connection between a law from the 1980's and the war on terrorism was. How does my comment that the people from the village supporting the persecution of Ms. Bibi - and the imam having her arrested - are a "bunch of fucking scumbags" relate to the question I asked you? What is it you wish to imply?

And how did this come to be so?

How did which come to be so?

Not the Christianity in Africa where countries are held to ransom by the Church if they promote safe sex, not against the Christian West attacking countries because a President thought God told him to.. Pales in comparison to "Islamism"..

You confound international politics with domestic issues here. But did you want him to condemn everything condemnable simultaneously? Has everyone else here done so? Have you done so?

Going to run with that like a child runs with scissors?

Not even sure what you're implying here, actually. Could you be more specific?

So the Christian woman is more important and more deserving of sympathy than the Muslim man who was assassinated, the Muslim religious leaders who have gone into hiding for supporting and defending her against this law and the Muslim woman and politician who has openly supported her and Taseer in trying to get this law overturned.. who is also is at present, whereabouts unknown?

The others don't count or matter or deserve sympathy because...?

No, no bigotry there..

Against whom? Politicians, men - which you could actually argue from my statements, if anybody could be convinced to care about this new perspective of yours - or Muslims? Short answer: he's a politician. In a country like Pakistan, I expect politicians to take chances. I admire him for what he did - unbelievably brave in that climate - but the woman getting sniped by Islamic fundamentalism having done something much less high-profile bothers me a little more. As I said: call me a chauvinist if you like. Although I'm not sure where one would rank the relative value of an actual reformer vs. a religious minority in that country.

Also, this issue is really ultimately related to nothing at all. It's a non-issue.

Michael's voice is one of many who profess such things. He's like our local Glen Beck really.

What does Chi have to do with it?

Do you understand that we do not exist in a vacuum?

So is it that someone will run off and stab an unbeliever to death because of what Michael says?

No. I will not retract.

Then I have no choice but to report you. Sorry, but you were warned; and this thread is going off track yet again.

Tell me, do you think Mr Taseer is a fool and a bigot?

Nope. Aren't you tired of the rhetorical tricks yet?

How about Mr Ghamidi and Ms Rehman?

Same.

I must be tired because I am reading that as it possibly should not be written..

I accept your acceptance.

I am still waiting for that substantiation from him. Where did he get 90% of Pakistanis and 85% of Indonesians from, for example? Surely there is a link somewhere? So why do you think he has consistently failed to provide any links to substantiate his claims?

Actually, he has done. You can dispute the numbers with him if you like.

I have known Chi for a while and I also know of his history based on what he has told us on this forum many years ago (I think before you even joined). As I said, if he were as much of an Islamist as you claim him and the word to be, then I am a nun. No, really..

Then he has changed drastically recently, and for the worse. Try as I may, I can make little else from his statements.

 

[quadraphonics]

So you wish to determine the geographical size of what is deemed holy now?

Yes - that's what I said, isn't it? If it imposes unduly on everyone else, then everybody else has no reason to respect such a designation of exclusivist holiness as reasonable. Just because some people say "my God says so!" is not sufficient grounds for me to respect it - it also has to be reasonable in a secular, let's-all-live-together sense.

So do you have an actual response to that? Or are you just going to strike a dismissive pose?

Do you know what I find most disturbing about Mecca?

I'd already read the Wikipedia page, but thanks for reposting it I suppose...

In short, the Saudis are getting away with destroying important religious sites and parts of their religious heritage. And you want to complain that non-Muslims can't go there?

Yep. Given that the Saudis are apparently not all that serious about the actual holiness of the stuff - that the prohibition on infidels is itself something of a facade of holiness masking an inner vacuum - I find such doubly unacceptable. As already mentioned, in my last post: it would be egregious enough if it were sincere, but as it is, it's more of a farce.

Kind of pales in comparison to the destruction of religious and historical sites to build a toilet block, don't you think?

No, I don't. I think that abridging basic human rights is worse than whatever hypocrisy you allege in their handling of their exclusivist zones. Indeed, the latter only sharpens the former, and begs the question of why you'd support their prohibition on infidels when, by your own charge, they do not take the holiness of the space all that seriously where it really counts.

Why on Earth would I think that (alleged) Saudi irreverence towards their self-designated holy spaces is a bigger deal than their supremacist discrimination against everyone else? Why would any non-Muslim particularly care about the development of a space that they will, by law, never be allowed to see?

It is their holy site and their choice as decided by Mohammed after many were slaughtered there while on their pilgrimage. I don't agree with it, but it is their choice.

So if Australians decide that their country is a holy space, which cannot brooke the presence of any Muslims - you'll respect their autonomy and self-determination, in its own right? If the Israelis decide the same, about their country?

I wouldn't. And I don't respect Saudi Arabia's presumption that their sovereignty trumps universal human rights, either. If you believe in universal human rights to freedom of conscience, religion, association and movement, than you can't also believe that the power claims of whatever identity group legitimately override them.

But again, that is their choice. The Vatican is closed to all unless by express invitation.

The Vatican is a popular tourist destination for millions of people of various faiths, every year. And long has been. I know plenty of non-Catholic, non-Christian people who've visited the place.

But, even if it wasn't, what makes you think that I'd support the Catholic church any more than the Saudis? Didn't I just explain to you that I'm not Christian, or supportive of Christian nationalism? Methinks you've spent so much time focussing grar on Geoff that you've lost your bearings.

As for Mecca, the reason to make it Muslim only I guess was a good idea at the time.

It was never a good idea. Religious supremacism never is, nor is exclusivism.

It is not for anyone to dictate what they do with their land and who they allow on it.

Again, I do not respect, as such, the sovereignty of any polity to the extent that it conflicts with universal human rights. That is, I recognize that they have the power to back up their claims, but such is just that: an exercise in power.

It is not for you to dictate who gets to criticize who for what, or even what their priorities are.

And at the rate it's currently going, all the historical sites will have been destroyed anyway.. to make way for hotels and toilet blocks.

Well, then, all the more reason that the prohibition on infidels is absurd and unacceptable, no?

I will, of course, expect you, Michael and Geoff to be the strongest opponents against Israel's immigration laws which allows the right of return and migration into Israel based on religious bigotry.

You realize, in the first place, that I am a different person than Michael and Geoff, with different ideas, positions and motivations? That I have before (and will again) turn on them rather viciously when it suits me?

And, furthermore, that I've never endorsed Israel's immigration laws, religious nationalism, etc.? Just because you've designated yourself Paladin of Islam doesn't mean that anybody who gets in your way is some uncritical champion of everything Israeli. How about you just deal with what I actually say, if you can't be bothered to figure out my larger perspective?

Hell, you should be screaming about Israel to be honest, and screaming against the bigotry that prevents migration to a whole country based on religion alone.

Saudi Arabian bigotry also prevents migration to a whole country - and, a much bigger one, at that - based on religion alone. Moreover, Jewish supremacism is a minor issue, in the larger scheme of the world. We're only talking about a few million people in a tiny state. Saudi Arabia is the spiritual capital of a religion followed by a large fraction of the human population, spread out over various continents. The standard of relations it maintains towards other faiths has considerable consequences at the civilizational scale - a Saudi Arabia that became more enlightened would go a long way towards improving a lot of things. A Saudi Arabia that remains reactionary and supremacist will continue to go a long way towards harming a lot of good things.

It is a holy site, based on the history of the site itself.

I do not recognize any site as "holy," in any sense other than the tautological. I.e., a "holy site" is a place that certain religious people describe as "holy." It carries no special significance or import to me, beyond that. To expect infidels to subscribe to a faith's designations of holiness is a particularly obtuse form of supremacism.

I have been having facepalm moments often while participating in this debate actually

Yes, you sure have.

You are also denied entry to the Vatican proper.

No, "you" are not. Vatican City is a major tourist destination for all sorts of people of various backgrounds. They have their share of kooky religious ideas, but do a decent job making reasonable accomodations for people to come visit and enjoy the history, architecture, art, etc.

But you do not complain there?

I would, if there were actually some parallel, but there is not.

Not that I accept this perverse standard wherein I have to pre-emptively complain about everything else that you might care to throw at me, before I can criticize Saudi bigotry and supremacism.

If you come to Australia, you would be denied the right to enter many Aboriginal religious sites.. no complaints from you about that either.

If we have a thread about Aboriginal religious sites, I might well complain. Although the fact would remain that such is not as big of a priority as the way in which a major world religion like Islam relates to the world.

You really think you're going to impress anyone by assigning strawman positions to me?

I am sure you would also be restricted from entering many areas in the US because it is religiously sacred to the Native population of that area..

I'm sure there are some such places, but have yet to encounter any. And I have plenty of relevant experience, growing up in a Native-heavy area as I did. Getting from my mom's house to the airport requires traversing about a dozen reservations, for example. Mostly the Natives are pretty open about including outsiders in such things - I've been to various harvest ceremonies, eaten at peoples' homes during feasts, etc. Heck, most of their truly sacred spaces are wide-open nature, and any attempt (by anyone) to impose human controls on such is seen as sacriligious.

So, again, maybe extend some at least some token effort on figuring out what I actually think, and what the relevant situation actually is, before launching a crusade.

Your Government, I will assume from your deserving manner, that you are American, is selected by the populace and one of the important factors for the majority is that they believe in God. Do you see the irony of this whole debate?

That's only "ironic" if you are addressing some strawman charicature of "Americans" in my place. And coming, as it does, immediately on the heels of an explicit disclaimer that I do not endorse the Christian nationalist strain of my own polity, what this actually is is "offensive." Isn't this, again, supposed to be exactly the sort of pigeonholing generalization that you are so outraged by? Or does that outrage only apply when it allows you to ride to the defense of Islam?

We have at least one complaining about the word "kafir" and viewing it as being somehow the same as "nigger". He can't even answer if System of a Down's use of the word is racist when they sing the same song as Wu-Tan Clan..

I am not accountable for whatever "one" does or doesn't say (much less, your characterizations of such). If you want to deal with what I actually think and say, well, you can start any time. I've got plenty of post history for you to draw from, or perhaps you could, y'know, just ask me what I think about things, before attacking whatever strawman is nearest at hand. Again, you distinguish yourself as one of the worst offenders at the behaviors you claim to abhor.

You mean the broad brush being used in this thread to say that the majority of over 1.5 billion Muslims are all bigots and support blasphemy laws that result in death penalties being handed down by local religious courts?

Yes, that's exactly the sort of complaint I was referring to. You can't claim to despise that stuff, and then gleefully engage in it yourself. Or rather, you can, but it'll be clear that you aren't fighting those ideations as such, but rather are simply a craven partisan. In which case, you'd do better to just admit such and deal honestly with everyone.

And yet, they are deemed allies and no one says a word against the practice.

Plenty of such words have been said. I'm right here saying such words, to you, right now. And there is no shortage of such criticism of our alliance with Saudi Arabia in the mainstream media - the tension has been obvious, and openly debated, for a long time. So, yet another awareness fail for you.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

I'm seeing a lot of hypocrisy and obtusity, and general bad-faith argumentation, coming from you.

One of our former Prime Ministers won an election after he portrayed boat people, trying to flee a sinking boat and saving their children by making sure they got safely overboard, as the type of people who would throw their own children into open sea to be allowed into the country.. The truth, unfortunately, became known after the election. The level of Islamaphobia rises and it is not just in Australia. Look at your last Presidential election where fears of Obama being a Muslim (apparently that would make him the ultimate evil) resulted in McCain's now famous 'he is not a Muslim, he is a good man' comment to one of the uneducated masses who went to his rallies.

Was there supposed to be some relevant point in there, or did you just get carried away with the facile observation that bigotry is banal and widespread?

Sorry if my pointing out that there is also bigotry and intolerance against Muslims as well.

Nobody has suggested that there isn't such. That doesn't make any of the problems with Saudi Arabia, or Islam in general, go away. Indeed, your purpose seems to be exactly to shield such problems from any scrutiny, using the troll techniques of distraction, personalizing the debate, and equivocation.

I mean, why are you standing up for overt, bigoted supremacism? This isn't some Palestinian losing his home to settlers, or some Afghan civilian killed by a drone strike. This is a reactionary religio-political cabal, employing the full powers of a rich petro-state and with extensive US politico-military backing, enshrining segregation and supremacism. You're standing up for The Man here, not some oppressed underclass.

I know it's raining down on your little 'bash Muslims' thread, but if you don't like it, you can shove it where the sun does not shine.

What's not to like? That you're so absurdly proud as to present your reduction into road-kill here as some kind of victory for yourself only adds to the glee.

Nor do I consider the label "bash Muslims" anything to be ashamed of, to the extent that it refers to opposing the sort of reactionary supremacism epitomized by Saudi Arabia, as I've exhibited here. And since you've clearly demonstrated that you don't have much idea what I do or don't think about anything - that you've simply stuffed me into some drawer labelled "Muslim Hating Crusader Imperialist" at the first sign of disagreement - your charge of bigotry carries no weight. Who's going to take it seriously, that I would care about?

You don't like being labeled a bigot?

I don't recall complaining about your attempts to so label me.

I do recall complaining that you keep addressing strawmen in my stead, and otherwise trying to stuff words into my mouth. Like the above supposition, for another example.

Even you, oh so mighty intelligent being that you are, should not be so dumb as to be offended when you make yourself known as being intolerant on this forum.

The only thing I've cited any offense to here, IIRC, is your repeated attempts to ascribe some sort of Christian nationalism to me, over my explicit statements to the contrary. That you will apply the terms "bigot" or "intolerant" to anyone that challenges your game of Defender of Islam does not bother me in the least - particularly when what you're defending is oppressive supremacism waged by an authoritarian dictatorship. Who, exactly, do you imagine takes your charges of intolerance seriously?

As Sam succintly pointed out. Kafir is used to describe non-believers (much as the English language uses 'heathen' in the same manner).

And the term "heathen" is offensive and unacceptable for exactly the same reason. You won't find me using it (or at least, not in a non-ironic/subversive way). It's exactly my extensive experience in understanding that sort of stuff in the immediate context of my own culture, that allows me to recognize it abroad.

Again, try to spend a few minutes figuring out my actual perspective. Between the relentless pigeonholing and the use of my culture as a club to beat me over the head with, you don't make much of an advocate against bigotry or browbeating.

If you are offended by that word, she can refer to you as a Muslim.

That's even more offensive.

The actual solution is to drop the requirement to label everyone according to their religion in the first place. That's where the real problem lies - once you graft that sort of lens over the discussion, the language inevitably turns to supremacism and divisiveness. Just call people "people," or use their names, or, y'know, just ask them what they'd like to be called instead of insisting that they be divided up into little faith boxes at the outset.

If you want to go around haranguing people for being insufficiently respectful of foreign cultures, you're going to have to start displaying a little respect yourself.

 

[Michael]

Bells,

I posted the list of Islamic REPUBLICS that have Democratically Elected government officials who have, expressing the will of their constituents (who elected them), passed BLASPHEMY LAWS.

That IS evidence.

Non-Muslims and Muslims of "heretical" sects LIVE under Religious Apartheid. There's no question about this. It's a FACT.

Perhaps we should have a discussion as to what constitutes EVIDENCE? I suppose, because this is a supposed Science forum, I just assumed you knew what evidence is.


Anyway, I ALSO posted even more damning evidence in the form of a Pew POLL (which is itself linked to the data site).
HERE

The evidence stands, HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of MUSLIMS support DEATH to the Infidel Apostate Kaffir. This isn't even your typical, don't shake the dirty Kaffir's hand bigotry, but out-and-out Religious Hate Crime.



Face the facts Bells. The evidence has been presented to you. It's that simple.




Having experienced Religious Discriminated myself, it's not unreasonable to express sympathy for the Religious minorities living under Islamic Apartheid. That said, I only support proper education in our countries. Which is where I eventually wanted to take this conversation, somehow we go stuck on a lack of understand what constitutes "evidence" of widespread Islamic bigotry. I hope we can now move past that.

So, what do you propose would be a solution ensuring this sort of bigotry isn't perpetrated in Western Nations?

 

[Bells]

Bells,

I posted the list of Islamic REPUBLICS that have Democratically Elected government officials who have, expressing the will of their constituents (who elected them), passed BLASPHEMY LAWS.

That IS evidence.

Non-Muslims and Muslims of "heretical" sects LIVE under Religious Apartheid. There's no question about this. It's a FACT.

Perhaps we should have a discussion as to what constitutes EVIDENCE? I suppose, because this is a supposed Science forum, I just assumed you knew what evidence is.


Anyway, I ALSO posted even more damning evidence in the form of a Pew POLL (which is itself linked to the data site).
HERE

The evidence stands, HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of MUSLIMS support DEATH to the Infidel Apostate Kaffir. This isn't even your typical, don't shake the dirty Kaffir's hand bigotry, but out-and-out Religious Hate Crime.



Face the facts Bells. The evidence has been presented to you. It's that simple.

You claimed earlier that 90% of Pakistan supports blasphemy laws.

"Unlike Indonesia whereby more than 80% of the public ARE more than supportive of the new Blasphemy Laws. Or in Pakistan where more than 90% support Blasphemy Laws and want to see an "unclean" Kafir mother of three hung."

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2689817&postcount=59
​

Where did you get that figure from? Link?

Or are you making this up?

I am so tired of asking you to substantiate your claims here Michael. You should know better. Now a few others are trying to sway this debate and take attention off you it seems, but my question to you remains..

You have yet to show any proof that over 1.5 billion people support religious bigotry and discrimination. You misrepresented a graph earlier and failed to show the current poll results, which was, unfortunately for you, found in your link. You attempted to claim that the greater majority in Islam, the majority of over 1.5 billion people supported blasphemy laws. You then tried to connect a graph showing poll results from 2002 and 2005 and tried to link it to the claim that it was support for blasphemy laws and that Muslims in these countries actually supported Islam in politics, when there is no such link or connection. I can now see why you had been so reticent to provide a link to your graph source. The question (in regards to the graph you showed) was not about who or how many supported Islam in Politics in these countries. The question was about who thinks Islam is involved in politics in their respective countries, very different to how you were painting it in regards to that graph.

Majorities of Muslims in three of the six predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, as well as in Nigeria, say that Islam plays a very or fairly large role in the political life of their countries. This view is especially prevalent in Indonesia and Nigeria, where nearly nine-in-ten Muslims (89% and 88%, respectively) say Islam exerts considerable influence in their country’s politics; 69% of Turkish Muslims and 54% of Lebanese Muslims also see Islam playing a large role in the political life of their countries.

In Pakistan, a 46% plurality of Muslims say Islam plays a large role, while 36% say it plays a small role in Pakistani politics. Opinions are about evenly divided in Egypt, where 48% of Muslims say Islam plays a large role in their country’s political life and 49% say it plays only a small role.


(From your link)
​

Could you be more dishonest?


The survey then discusses whether people think Islam's role in politics is positive and there, many said it was. But in no way does it mention or indicate support for blasphemy laws or bigotry. But the most interesting part of your link? You know, discussing religious extremism which does lead to religious bigotry and discrimination?

Islamic extremism continues to be a serious concern in nations with substantial Muslim populations. Large majorities in five of the six predominantly Muslim nations surveyed as well as in Nigeria, where roughly half of the population is Muslim, say they are very or somewhat concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism around the world. The only outlier is Turkey, where 39% are concerned.

Many are also worried about the rise of Islamic extremism within their own countries.
That is especially the case in Lebanon, where eight-in-ten – including 90% of Christians, 82% of Shia and 67% of Sunnis – express at least some concern. In Nigeria, roughly three-quarters (76%) are concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, including 83% of Muslims and 68% of Christians.

Nearly two-thirds of Pakistanis (65%) express concern about Islamic extremism in their country, but fears have declined since last year, when 79% shared that view. About six-in-ten in Egypt (61%) and Indonesia (59%) and more than four-in-ten in Jordan (44%) and Turkey (43%) are also concerned about extremism in their countries.​

It also showed a distinctly high proportion of those surveyed favouring democracy as a prefered form of governance than any other.

So Michael, I ask again, where did you get the figure that 90% of Pakistanis support blasphemy laws and the killing of this woman?

 

[Bells]

A poll of 8,000 people can be used to conclude nothing? I doubt this prospect, although I could be convinced otherwise; what level of representation is a correct one to gauge political and religious sentiments? Should we accept no polls at all then? What that poll and other suggest is that there's a significant undercurrent of support for religious law in several Islamic countries, which is probably bad.

Do you think 8000 is representative of over 1.5 billion people?

How many were interviewed in each country?

Would you take a poll that interviewed 5 people across America about the feelings towards Obama seriously? Would it be correctly indicative of the over-all feelings or beliefs of all Americans do you think?

Which is pretty staggering, yes. They don't specify the implications of such support, but any even near-significant minority for stoning would strike me as a very, very bad figure.

Well yes it would. Then again, I am of the belief that any support for capital punishment is a bad figure.

Well, yes: I did notice that. I even clicked it. It's just that it doesn't support your allegation that he thought 80-90% of all Muslims, everywhere, let alone all of them, everywhere ("all 1.5 billion", as you've said), for religious bigotry. Even giving so much as a percentage indicates by definition that he's not making an allegation of uniformity. So I don't think your position is supported on this element; sorry.

It is not my fault that you cannot follow what is said in a thread. I asked him to correct himself several times from page 2 of this thread. He consistently ignored and continued reasserting that the majority of 1.5 billion people support religious bigotry and then claimed it as "fact".

Let me know when you stop making excuses for thim.

My position on their beliefs or anyone else's doesn't matter. You yourself have made quite broad statements of disbelief about my religion and others; this is your right, as it must be - presumably - mine to do so. I am not required, moreover, to respect the beliefs of anyone where it comes to the matter of law. So if your criticism is that I am not a Muslim, I suppose I must admit guilt on this particular. Then again, most people on the forum, including yourself since we must make this personal, are guilty of the same disrespect.

Ah the irony..

Tell me, do you think your God is bigger than their God? Oh wait, you, the believer, do not believe their God even exists..

Sorry, but you've sort of missed my point about the institutionalization of such a law in the federal state that Pakistan has become, in comparison to about a millennium of Islamic religious law. I think you're splitting hairs on this one.

And you are refusing to see the obvious white elephant in the room.

This was an interesting comment: I'm not sure what you're attempting to argue. I asked what the connection between a law from the 1980's and the war on terrorism was. How does my comment that the people from the village supporting the persecution of Ms. Bibi - and the imam having her arrested - are a "bunch of fucking scumbags" relate to the question I asked you? What is it you wish to imply?

That you fail to read anything linked in this thread.

How did which come to be so?

Ah, I love it when you dodge.

You confound international politics with domestic issues here. But did you want him to condemn everything condemnable simultaneously? Has everyone else here done so? Have you done so?

Are you saying that religious bigotry is not an international issue? So religious bigotry in non-Islamic countries are not important?

Not even sure what you're implying here, actually. Could you be more specific?

It was obvious the first time.

Against whom? Politicians, men - which you could actually argue from my statements, if anybody could be convinced to care about this new perspective of yours - or Muslims? Short answer: he's a politician. In a country like Pakistan, I expect politicians to take chances. I admire him for what he did - unbelievably brave in that climate - but the woman getting sniped by Islamic fundamentalism having done something much less high-profile bothers me a little more. As I said: call me a chauvinist if you like. Although I'm not sure where one would rank the relative value of an actual reformer vs. a religious minority in that country.

Also, this issue is really ultimately related to nothing at all. It's a non-issue.

You are saying that a Muslim man assassinated for denouncing the blasphemy laws that has this woman facing her horrid fate is "related to nothing at all" and a non-issue? Is it because he is a Muslim and a Pakistani that you say this?

What of the religious leaders and at least one other woman (a Muslim and a politician) who have had to go into hiding and exile for speaking out for Mrs Bibi? Are they "non-issue" as well?

Then I have no choice but to report you. Sorry, but you were warned; and this thread is going off track yet again.

Not my fault you tried to run interference to my asking Michael to back up his cliams. And report away.

Nope. Aren't you tired of the rhetorical tricks yet?

Well you just deemed him a "non-issue". You tell me..

Actually, he has done. You can dispute the numbers with him if you like.

Awww.. the guard dog backing down and letting me question the master?

Good puppy!

Then he has changed drastically recently, and for the worse. Try as I may, I can make little else from his statements.

He has always tended to be at his worst when confronted with internet trolls. Cheer up, he may end up having a change of heart and being nice to you one day.

 

[GeoffP]

Non-issues

Do you think 8000 is representative of over 1.5 billion people?

How many were interviewed in each country?

Do the math. One can take those numbers and infer a reasonable proportion of support for quite extreme religious laws. Or else give up polling altogether, since sample sizes in most polls are probably equivalent. Extracting those numbers in each country is probably not unrepresentative, since the range of general types of countries in each group is also representative (secular-religious).

Well yes it would. Then again, I am of the belief that any support for capital punishment is a bad figure.

Good. Then stoning, doubly so, or worse. The death penalty is debatable, but at the least it is humane: the implications thereof or not for another time.

It is not my fault that you cannot follow what is said in a thread. I asked him to correct himself several times from page 2 of this thread. He consistently ignored and continued reasserting that the majority of 1.5 billion people support religious bigotry and then claimed it as "fact".

Actually, he said that there were hundreds of millions who did support it: and there are. I don't see a specific disagreement with your implicit counterassertion.

Ah the irony..

Tell me, do you think your God is bigger than their God? Oh wait, you, the believer, do not believe their God even exists..

Many questions here again, aside from the actual white elephant: why should anyone drag their god into a courtroom?

As for the rest: of course my God is bigger than their God. And they believe counter. Should they be constrained to think otherwise, as it applies to a court of law? Perhaps they or I can prove our Gods exist, so as to subpoena them? If I were to drag my God into a courtroom, I would expect as much distain, and I would get it. Enough irrelevant sideline.

And you are refusing to see the obvious white elephant in the room.

There it is. Such laws date back well before 1980, Bells; the wiki indicates that such laws were applied officially to non-Muslims only from 1980 onward, but that is merely the tip of the iceberg regarding the inhumanity of such laws.

That you fail to read anything linked in this thread.

Sorry: again - how does my comment relate to your arguments? To clarify, I have reposted my question:

I asked what the connection between a law from the 1980's and the war on terrorism was. How does my comment that the people from the village supporting the persecution of Ms. Bibi - and the imam having her arrested - are a "bunch of fucking scumbags" relate to the question I asked you? What is it you wish to imply?

What does this have to do with reading or not reading things in this thread?

Ah, I love it when you dodge.

Bells, I am trying to figure out which it is that you mean. I would like you to expressly describe which of those several points you mean to address. I expect that it's lost in the annals of posting by this point, but my question was genuine. You realize that, even had you really thought so, you could have highlighted which element you wished me to address?

Are you saying that religious bigotry is not an international issue? So religious bigotry in non-Islamic countries are not important?

You are confusing your issues again: which do you mean as international? Religious bigotry in other countries - which for them is domestic - or trans-border, which I presumed you meant by some comment about a President (American, I assume) attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. But back to the point: did you want Michael to condemn everything condemnable simultaneously? Has everyone else here done so? Have you done so?

It was obvious the first time.

So humor me. What are you saying?

You are saying that a Muslim man assassinated for denouncing the blasphemy laws that has this woman facing her horrid fate is "related to nothing at all" and a non-issue? Is it because he is a Muslim and a Pakistani that you say this?

Er...Ms Bibi is also a Pakistani.

But at any rate I fail to see what the above bolded text is meant to illustrate. I also don't follow how you have turned Mr. Taseer's assassination into "nothing at all". Rather, it is your opinion about this that is related to nothing at all. I have given a full description of the reasons for my opinion on this subject. I will repost them; I hope that this helps.

Against whom? Politicians, men - which you could actually argue from my statements, if anybody could be convinced to care about this new perspective of yours - or Muslims? Short answer: he's a politician. In a country like Pakistan, I expect politicians to take chances. I admire him for what he did - unbelievably brave in that climate - but the woman getting sniped by Islamic fundamentalism having done something much less high-profile bothers me a little more. As I said: call me a chauvinist if you like. Although I'm not sure where one would rank the relative value of an actual reformer vs. a religious minority in that country.

Not my fault you tried to run interference to my asking Michael to back up his cliams. And report away.

I have done so. In the event of future comments of a similar nature, I will immediately do so again.

Well you just deemed him a "non-issue".

Also false. I recommend re-reading the salient post.

Awww.. the guard dog backing down and letting me question the master?

How sad you cannot answer the dog alone, then.

He has always tended to be at his worst when confronted with internet trolls.

And infidels, seemingly.

You know, discussing religious extremism which does lead to religious bigotry and discrimination?

That depends on what one considers "extremist". Glenn Beck probably doesn't consider himself too extreme, for example.

 

[James R]

Just a note on polling and statistics:

Do you think 8000 is representative of over 1.5 billion people?

How many were interviewed in each country?

Would you take a poll that interviewed 5 people across America about the feelings towards Obama seriously? Would it be correctly indicative of the over-all feelings or beliefs of all Americans do you think?

The aim of any poll of people is to get a representative sample of the entire population that is of interest. In fact, that's the aim of random sampling of any kind at all.

Statistically, it is possible to quantify the expected deviation from the poll results in the whole population, based on the size of the sample and a numebr of other factors.

Whether any particular sample gives a fair representation of the views of the population as a whole depends on many things, but primarily on a truly random selection from the target population.

Given a sample of 8000 people from a given population, if you ask whether they support something or do not support it, then you should expect a margin or error of approximately 1% in the results, provided the sample is a true reflection of the population being sampled.

For example, if you survey 8000 people about whether they think blasphemy laws are a good idea or not, and 84% of them say "yes" and 16% say "no", then you'd expect that if you took another 8000-person random sample from the same population and re-did the survey, then the "yes" results would be in the range 82-86% with about 95% probability for the second sample.

In other words, a sample of 8000 people is a fairly good sample of a population of 1.5 billion (or whatever), provided that it is truly randomly selected.

A sample of 5 people, on the other hand, is not likely to be a representative sample. In that case, if 4 out of 5 of the people polled said "yes" to a yes-no question, then you'd expect that if you took a new sample of 5 people and asked the same question that 66% of the time you'd get between 2 out of 5 and 5 out of 5 saying "yes", which isn't very useful.

 

[GeoffP]

Maybe we should give up polling. No one likes it, when it runs countercurrent to assumption.

 

[quadraphonics]

Do you think 8000 is representative of over 1.5 billion people?

How many were interviewed in each country?

Would you take a poll that interviewed 5 people across America about the feelings towards Obama seriously? Would it be correctly indicative of the over-all feelings or beliefs of all Americans do you think?

The proportional sample size (scaling by population) would be something like 1500 people. And, yes, that would widely be considered a perfectly acceptable statistical sample of American opinions. The standard USA Today/Gallup telephone polls typically survey 1000 Americans at random, and nobody seems to have much problem with this.

A sampling of Muslims worldwide at a similar rate would require about 5000 respondents (supposing we accept your estimate of the total Muslim population). Which is to say that this survey used a methodology that is considerably more strict than is standard usage in the US by a considerable margin.

If there's something to criticize there, it's not the size of the sample, but whether it's truly random. As usual.