Criminalisation of Blasphemy: is it equal to criminalising proselytism?

[icehorse]

Nope. New Topic.

Guess what? We both carried our debate from your other thread into this one! ha!

 

[firedragon]

Guess what? We both carried our debate from your other thread into this one! ha!

Really? Dang. Its all your fault.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it wasn't for a religious man you would not have algorithms to process your computer.

Bullocks. Religion had nothing to do with that.
Just because the guy happened to be a muslim, doesn't mean that the invention of algorithms was thanks to his religion, and most certainly it doesn't mean that only a muslim could come up with that.

It's like saying "if it wasn't for a guy with a mustache, the holocaust wouldn't have happened".

Now go ahead and please make another bogus apologetic negating it. Say something like "it was not his religion" and show your bigotry

???

How is it bigotry to point out that algorithms have nothing to do with religion????
Stalin had a mustache too, you know.

Correlation does not imply causation.
Shall we make the same silly argument about all the scientific advances that were accomplished by atheists and then pretend as if non-belief of theism was required for them?

People invent things and people do scientific things mate. Newton was a theologian and scientist and didnt make his theories due to secularism but his own personal thinking prowess.

It's funny, because Newton invoked his religious beliefs exactly once in his work in physics. And it was when he got stuck. He couldn't explain certain aspects of planetary orbits and then said "...in this, I see the hand of god".

Then many years later, LaPlace solved that problem, and didn't actually really require anything that wasn't already known in Newton's time.

The personal faith based beliefs of scientists have nothing to do with their scientific accomplishments.

In fact, if you really would wish to go down that route... The counter argument would obliterate your case. Go and look at how many nobel prizes in the natural sciences were won by muslims as opposed to jews for example.

Does that say something about Islam and Judaism in your opinion? I bet it doesn't.
I bet it only says something about islam when you can make it sound positive.



So in conclusion: the religious beliefs of a person have exactly squat to do with their scientific accomplishments. No, being a muslim wasn't a prerequisite to be able to come up with the concept of algorithms. Neither was being religious in general. It just so happens that the person was a muslim. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[firedragon]

Bullocks. Religion had nothing to do with that.

No one said "religion had anything to do with it". He was just a religious man. Thats it.

So please keep your misquotations to yourself mate. Its pathetic.

How is it bigotry to point out that algorithms have nothing to do with religion????

Bogus argument. Strawman.

It's funny, because Newton invoked his religious beliefs exactly once in his work in physics. And it was when he got stuck. He couldn't explain certain aspects of planetary orbits and then said "...in this, I see the hand of god".

Again, straw man.

Its not about religion. Its about being a human being. Religious or non-religious, anyone can have intellect. Thats the whole point.

So bye.

 

[MNoBody]

one man's blasphemy is another man's sacred.
so any circumstantial outcome would then depend on which theocratic force of might takes the high ground and dictates terms to everyone else .....which is how history always reads out, apparently, thus far, in any case......but the future isn't carved in stone, so to say.

 

[danieldemol]

Freedom of religious belief is key to the existence of men as rational free-thinking individual citizens in the state. It emanates directly from a normative premise of equality, the demand that every doctrine should be open to scrutiny, and a belief that no dogma can be held with certainty.

One thing people should understand is that as soon as a law is implemented that provides a hint of siding with a race or creed the crowd pertaining to that race or creed embraces a false sense of power. This sense of power can make people senseless. Someone said one day that "power is the most stupid thing on earth, because it makes it easier to act than to think". As if this was said as a prediction, a country having blasphemy laws like the obvious country we are discussing these days, Pakistan will show you how people take power into their hands. This is a drunkardness while the potent alcohol is power. Its the worse kind.

If this is the reason for upholding religious freedom, then the legal right to religious freedom must be interpreted accordingly. If religious freedom is protected because no religious dogma can be held with certainty, then those who challenge the existing dogma should be encouraged and not punished. It follows that activities such as blasphemy and proselytism, which do exactly that, must not be criminalized. Critique, discussion and a robust exchange of ideas are best promoted when individuals are free to convince others to convert to their belief, and to speak for and against religions, even in ways that may be deemed by some inappropriate, free from fear of prosecution.

I believe its either this way or that way, there is no middle ground. What I mean by that statement is, if you install blasphemy laws, be it small or severe as in jail time or death penalty itself, that's the beginning of the end. Though it maybe very difficult for a Buddhist to see a picture of the Buddha on a bikini, the moment a country imposes a law against such an act, people tend to go power drunk. The eventual outcome being ethnic tension and even hundreds, thousands and even hundreds of thousands of deaths, economic demise and decades of war. The government must consider individual freedom as one of the most fundamental matters to be included in the security vault of law. This may create some heartache, but people will behave into it eventually. It is absolutely unethical to insult another persons religious figure. If one wishes to debate or dialogue the topic of theology it is quite easy to do it with respect, but with vigorous analysis. That being said, imposing laws on this matter seemingly has no positive outcome whatsoever.

If proselytism is allowed in a country, so should be blasphemy. Now because some people might turn this statement to mean "Only if proselytism is allowed in a country, so should be blasphemy" I am editing this post to say that it was an analogy, not a basic requirement.

Peace.

I applaud the efforts of Muslims who take a stand against blasphemy laws

 

[Revoltingest]

If I follow you, I agree:

We should defend free speech. Free speech allows proselytizing and criticizing.

Good.
You read it & answered it for me.
And who says horses are obsolete these days!