Palestianian atheist arrested

[kai]

But attacking the Palestinians and terrorizing them?
Invading other nations and terrorizing them?

Unfortunately Hamas is at war with Israel until such time as there is peace ordinary Palestinians will be the victims in that war.

you name a war and there will be a rational for it from both sides if there werent any sides there wouldn't be a war I ,mean you dont seem to have a problem with someone endorsing suicide bombing of Israelis? so other people don't have a problem with endorsing the Israeli position but i am not sure which invasions are you talking about? but i am certain the invaders will have a reason for doing so, and to them they are in the right and here in the UK there was a plenty disagreement in the Iraq and Afghan invasions with no risk of being jailed or punishment for that disagreement.

 

[Sahar]

Unfortunately Hamas is at war with Israel until such time as there is peace ordinary Palestinians will be the victims in that war.

you name a war and there will be a rational for it from both sides if there werent any sides there wouldn't be a war I ,mean you dont seem to have a problem with someone endorsing suicide bombing of Israelis? so other people don't have a problem with endorsing the Israeli position

So, at the end you don't give the same space of speech for the opposing side. So you define where freedom of speech ends according to your convictions.

 

[Looncall]

But attacking the Palestinians and terrorizing them?
Invading other nations and terrorizing them?

It's just like the Iraq situation. If the muslims behaved in a civilized way, there would likely be no problem. No-one should expect to be treated kindly by a neighbour at whom one fires rockets.

 

[kai]

So, at the end you don't give the same space of speech for the opposing side. So you define where freedom of speech ends according to your convictions.

The endorsement of killing civilians as policy, isn't accepted as free speech in this country (UK). Civilians are non combatants so endorsing the targeting of them on purpose is not acceptable here and that's by any side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's what Religious people believe, Religion is not a self made idea for them, Its a dogma of Supreme power and Authority according to which they define their lifestyles. The base of their belief is not a buffet dinner where they pick one suited item over the other, they choose to believe and follow the principles of that religion which is defined by an Authority bigger than their govts. Now for you, govt or your egoistic tenet of beliefs is superior( i say egoistic because it comes from the self, so ego plays a definite part) , for us, God and His dogma is supreme.

You can say whatever you want but your ' argumentation' on the basis of your perception is of no credibility to the believers so you will have to accept that they are never going to go by Your definition of right or wrong if you were to impose your thoughts on them, simple as that.

So, I'm not like stepping on your rights of freedom of speech, I'm only telling you that when you spend time and energy refuting, ridiculing a religious belief, the loss is your own, talk as you may, gather protests, condemn them however, But you can't dictate them what to do in the light of whats right in your opinion. Religions have laws for blasphemy, without any apology to you or to anyone else for that matter.

As someone who believes that power is derived from the people governed, I have to say that I do not want anyone who believes that they should have the right to impose their religious beliefs and practices on me to be in any sort of position of power over me, or over anybody who disagrees with them.

For atheists, i understand that respect for religions and religious figures is a constant speck in the eye, but you have no right to dictate that disrespect to anyone else.It is just a forceful imposition without any merits or moral grounds.

Nobody is dictating disrespect of religious figures. Voicing one's opinion on religious issues is not "dictating". Just because you hear a point of view you find offensive does not mean you have to adopt it. You can refuse to accept it; you can speak out in opposition to it.

But here's the thing - I see this issue as a tradeoff: on the one hand is respect for religion; on the other hand is respect for the person. IMO, throwing someone in jail for "blasphemy" necessarily damages that respect for the person. That's where I take issue with what's going on.

As a matter of fact, this rift will always exist between athiests and believers, because it stems from the basic opposition between the two, while athiests just defending their stance with the clever use of the 'freedom of speech' term. Freedom of speech always existed, so did blasphemy, but they were two distinct terms, now they have merged into one. But sorry, not so w.r.t religions.

I think you'd be surprised to the extent that different religious groups can commit "blasphemy" against each other.

For instance, do you remember the recent news story where someone threatened to stage a Quran burning in Florida? The organizer of that wasn't an atheist; he was a Christian pastor.

Actually, seeing how this story relates to Palestine, one of the worst hotbeds of sectarian violence in the world, I really don't see how you can come up with this picture of the world where it's "religious people" versus the "angry atheists". More often than not, the religious people have their hands full fighting each other: Sunni vs. Shi'a... Muslim vs. Jew... Muslim vs. Hindu... Sikh vs. Hindu... Catholic vs. Protestant... etc., etc.

The palestinian athiest being arrested was not making logical derivations out of a discussion as to why he did not believe in God, he was slandering, maligning and insulting the religion in a very profuse way, in a muslim country. I'd wager he knew very well what he was doing and what were the consequences, probably it was just a pathetic attempt by him to bag sympathy from the western countries for gaining asylum there, nothing else.

If giving up one's human rights is the cost of living in a Muslim country, then I for one don't think there should be any Muslim countries. It's as simple as that: if an ideology is opposed to freedom, then I am opposed to that ideology.

Luckily, I think that most forms of Islam that I've encountered are more tolerant of the beliefs of others than your version is.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Excuse me, but Why are you judging the palestinian authorities for jailing the guy, according to your perception of fairness? It is understood it was his country and he well understood the law of Blasphemy before deliberately chafing the law of that land.

Because the law in this case is oppressive and unfair.

What is the basis of your criticism here? If I'm in a country i choose to abide by their law whether or not it suits to my personal likeness. You can't dictate people to break the laws of their countries.

Nobody here is dictating anyone to break the laws in Palestine. But people should have the right to express their opinions. The law in this case is oppressive and unfair.

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself, don't you? I'm glad the world doesn't run on your intentions

Resorting to Ad Homine attacks now are we.

What dodge, i declined the vain offer in view of the fact i already see your stance being defeated.

Really?
Prove it to me.
Put me in my place.
I dare you.

You cannot boast a booming economy to stand parallel with a dead economy, killed by the invaders and the supporters of those invaders, to give a sermon about how good your country is in supporting the dead economies. I find that quite arrogant actually, I don't like meddling with arrogance.

The only reason economy came up in the first place was because you effectively claimed that Norway had no regard for those who are worse off.
That claim has now been completely demolished.

Yeah sure and that is why you are discussing the whole thing and inviting me for a duel because your opinions are not insulted, you only want to insult mine.

My goal here was not to insult anyone. The reason I like discussing these matters is because I care about personal freedom and I care about the truth. If someone gets insulted in the process that is unfortunate, but freedom and truth is way more important than someone’s hurt feelings.

Here's the difference, to you, science and religion both are ideas, so you will deal with them according to what they deliver to your personal likes and dislikes.

Science is the best and most effective idea we humans have come up with and we owe all of modern society to it. Religion has brought us...what? Likes and dislikes do not enter into it.

You can trash both for lacking to address to your needs, and you also refuse to see how your attitude applies to the rest of the world.

I am well aware of how my attitude applies to the world, and I think you will be hard pressed to find me “trashing” science anywhere.

Here's what Religious people believe, Religion is not a self made idea for them, Its a dogma of Supreme power and Authority according to which they define their lifestyles.

I’m well aware of what religious people believe in this context. That doesn’t make it true, nor does it grant the idea of religion any special reverence.

The base of their belief is not a buffet dinner where they pick one suited item over the other, they choose to believe and follow the principles of that religion which is defined by an Authority bigger than their govts.

Actually it is a buffet. Just look at the thousands of different denominations and various groups within every major religion in which none of them can agree on what is correct. And to top it off all of them claim to have the one true way to god, not to mention that they have yet to demonstrate that such an authority actually exist. It would seem to me that it would be prudent to prove that something exists before we start speculating on what it does or does not want.

Now for you, govt or your egoistic tenet of beliefs is superior( i say egoistic because it comes from the self, so ego plays a definite part) , for us, God and His dogma is supreme.

You have the right to believe in whatever deity you see fit and I have the right to tell people why it is silly.

You can say whatever you want but your ' argumentation' on the basis of your perception is of no credibility to the believers so you will have to accept that they are never going to go by Your definition of right or wrong if you were to impose your thoughts on them, simple as that.

*Shrug* I didn’t come here expecting to convert anyone. Oh, I have converted (or is the term de-convert?) people, but I don’t see that happening on a forum on the internet.

So, I'm not like stepping on your rights of freedom of speech, I'm only telling you that when you spend time and energy refuting, ridiculing a religious belief, the loss is your own, talk as you may, gather protests, condemn them however, But you can't dictate them what to do in the light of whats right in your opinion.

Again, I have no intention of dictating anything. I can only hope that they will listen to reason at some point, although I must admit this conversation doesn’t bode well for that proposition.

Religions have laws for blasphemy, without any apology to you or to anyone else for that matter.

Thankfully I live in a society in which the public decides the law through elected officials and in which religious law has absolutely no authority.

For atheists, i understand that respect for religions and religious figures is a constant speck in the eye, but you have no right to dictate that disrespect to anyone else. It is just a forceful imposition without any merits or moral grounds.

Again, I have no intention of dictating anything. But since we are on the subject of oppression, how about those who find themselves in a country with a Muslim majority and who hold differing beliefs? Should they accept that they are being “dictated” into adhering to unjust laws? Should they not have the right to speak up?

As a matter of fact, this rift will always exist between athiests and believers, because it stems from the basic opposition between the two, while athiests just defending their stance with the clever use of the 'freedom of speech' term. Freedom of speech always existed, so did blasphemy, but they were two distinct terms, now they have merged into one. But sorry, not so w.r.t religions.

I think you will find that you cannot “dictate” what other people should and should not say, up to and including insulting and blasphemous comments about religion. I both can and will say whatever I please and there is nothing you can do about it. The kind of violent reactions we saw after the cartoons of Muhammed were published only creates more distrust for Muslims world-wide and will lead to more people opposing it. For someone who supposedly has access to divine wisdom those Muslims really are terrible at choosing their battles.

The palestinian athiest being arrested was not making logical derivations out of a discussion as to why he did not believe in God, he was slandering, maligning and insulting the religion in a very profuse way, in a muslim country.

As should be his right.

I'd wager he knew very well what he was doing and what were the consequences, probably it was just a pathetic attempt by him to bag sympathy from the western countries for gaining asylum there, nothing else.

I certainly cannot speak as to what his motivation was. He will have to do that himself.

He actually claimed to be God ( do athiests do that?), giving divine orders to his fans on the page, while telling them that they should smoke marijuana because its in the holy book? Are You serious? The guy seems sufficiently in need of mental health care, and I'm sure thats why he got arrested in the first place, his statements were getting out of hand.

He did so obviously to jest.
Stop taking yourself and your religion so seriously.

It’s not as if it’s gospel or anything...

If you're hoping to rule the world with that kind of thinking, I'm afraid you don't stand a chance, not atleast in the muslim population. Good luck anyway.

Thanks for that. It pleases me to see that atheism is the fastest growing religious position in the US and many other places in the world. We’ll get to the Muslim countries soon enough.

Soon the whole world will have to slave under the atheist tenets of...well, nothing really. :sarcastic

 

[Revoltingest]

It's just like the Iraq situation. If the muslims behaved in a civilized way, there would likely be no problem. No-one should expect to be treated kindly by a neighbour at whom one fires rockets.

But is it civilized when Israelis retaliate with collective punishment?
Failing to behave in a civilized manner is not strictly a "Muslim" problem.

 

[Looncall]

But is it civilized when Israelis retaliate with collective punishment?
Failing to behave in a civilized manner is not strictly a "Muslim" problem.

I am no particular admirer of the Israelis.

However, when attacked by a cowardly enemy who hides among the civilian population, what other choice do they have?

 

[Starsoul]

If giving up one's human rights is the cost of living in a Muslim country, then I for one don't think there should be any Muslim countries. It's as simple as that: if an ideology is opposed to freedom, then I am opposed to that ideology.

Luckily, I think that most forms of Islam that I've encountered are more tolerant of the beliefs of others than your version is.

And luckily I don't change my brand my of religion with every little cupcake that i come across. Thanks for speaking your mind out, I don't think I have to adjust my views to your savage mentality for you to like or approve my religion, It is what it is.

The way you say "there should be no muslim countries" is enough for me to know what you hold inside for muslims and how you justify all the barbarism against them, as long as its coming from your side, Thanks for the opinion.

 

[Starsoul]

. But since we are on the subject of oppression, how about those who find themselves in a country with a Muslim majority and who hold differing beliefs? Should they accept that they are being “dictated” into adhering to unjust laws? Should they not have the right to speak up?

Uhh really? So If Im in your country and I believe that homosexuality should be eradicated in the light of my belief, would your country allow me that? There always are minorities in most countries and they abide by the land of the law, and they move when its too for much for them to take it, without resorting to cheap publicity tactics.

Stop taking yourself and your religion so seriously.

It’s not as if it’s gospel or anything...

You should stop taking yourself too seriously really, its quite interesting how people of your ideology have the world domination plans, its actually really umm, interesting if not insane

Thanks for that. It pleases me to see that atheism is the fastest growing religious position in the US and many other places in the world. We’ll get to the Muslim countries soon enough.

Really, Do you have any figures though? its interesting how its happening in christian majority countries only, or the countries with the top crime rates, like US for instance. Nice claims, looking forward to see you save the world one day.

 

[kai]

Uhh really?

So If Im in your country and I believe that homosexuality should be eradicated in the light of my belief, would your country allow me that?

There always are minorities in most countries and they abide by the land of the law, and they move when its too for much for them to take it, without resorting to cheap publicity tactics.

I am pretty sure that would depend on just how you intend to eradicate it.

 

[Autodidact]

Listen the issue of hamas and Israel is a talk about a specific conflict and case. Yusuf Al Qaradawi is an Egyptian scholar. I wasn't talking about someone who actually fight the Americans or who support any suicide operation against American civilians. But the case here is related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. True that the US is the greatest supporter for Israel and based on this, there will always be bias and double standards. Nothing is surprising about this. I can ask as well, would a foreigner who support the Israeli attacks against Palestinians ever be banned from entering the US? Not in a million years as you say there.

I believe Mr. Qaradawi refers to the U.S. as "the enemy," so I can understand refusing entrance to an enemy.

 

[Meow Mix]

Uhh really? So If Im in your country and I believe that homosexuality should be eradicated in the light of my belief, would your country allow me that? There always are minorities in most countries and they abide by the land of the law, and they move when its too for much for them to take it, without resorting to cheap publicity tactics.

I didn't take you for the sort of person I had to be frightened of

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And luckily I don't change my brand my of religion with every little cupcake that i come across. Thanks for speaking your mind out, I don't think I have to adjust my views to your savage mentality for you to like or approve my religion, It is what it is.

The way you say "there should be no muslim countries" is enough for me to know what you hold inside for muslims and how you justify all the barbarism against them, as long as its coming from your side, Thanks for the opinion.

I justify no barbarism, and I hold great regard for the vast majority of Muslims. I simply don't want the oppressive system that you describe, and that you call "Islam", imposed on anyone simply because they "chose" to be born in the wrong part of the world.

I fully support your right to speak as you please, believe as you please, and worship as you please. But I also feel that when a person enjoys these rights, they take on a duty to protect these rights for others. The society you describe, whether it's "Muslim" or not, fails in this duty.

 

[Autodidact]

Excuse me, but Why are you judging the palestinian authorities for jailing the guy, according to your perception of fairness?

Because it was the Palestinian Authority who jailed him. Who else should be blamed?

It is understood it was his country and he well understood the law of Blasphemy before deliberately chafing the law of that land.

So you're blaming him?

The question is, is this law right or wrong?

What is the basis of your criticism here? If I'm in a country i choose to abide by their law whether or not it suits to my personal likeness. You can't dictate people to break the laws of their countries.

Should it be a law?

Here's what Religious people believe, Religion is not a self made idea for them, Its a dogma of Supreme power and Authority according to which they define their lifestyles. The base of their belief is not a buffet dinner where they pick one suited item over the other, they choose to believe and follow the principles of that religion which is defined by an Authority bigger than their govts. Now for you, govt or your egoistic tenet of beliefs is superior( i say egoistic because it comes from the self, so ego plays a definite part) , for us, God and His dogma is supreme.

That's what some religious people believe. Others believe quite different things. [You are not all religious believers.]

You can say whatever you want but your ' argumentation' on the basis of your perception is of no credibility to the believers so you will have to accept that they are never going to go by Your definition of right or wrong if you were to impose your thoughts on them, simple as that.

No one's trying to impose anything. We're debating. Do you understand the difference?

So, I'm not like stepping on your rights of freedom of speech, I'm only telling you that when you spend time and energy refuting, ridiculing a religious belief, the loss is your own, talk as you may, gather protests, condemn them however, But you can't dictate them what to do in the light of whats right in your opinion. Religions have laws for blasphemy, without any apology to you or to anyone else for that matter.

I can't dictate, but I might persuade. That is the purpose of this discussion.

For atheists, i understand that respect for religions and religious figures is a constant speck in the eye, but you have no right to dictate that disrespect to anyone else.It is just a forceful imposition without any merits or moral grounds.

The moral ground, which I understand you do not share, is fairness, equality and freedom. Nobody's trying to impose anything. What we're doing here is discussing, with a view to persuading. Are you open to discussing your views?

As a matter of fact, this rift will always exist between athiests and believers, because it stems from the basic opposition between the two, while athiests just defending their stance with the clever use of the 'freedom of speech' term. Freedom of speech always existed, so did blasphemy, but they were two distinct terms, now they have merged into one. But sorry, not so w.r.t religions.

So are you saying that Islam cannot tolerate freedom of speech?

The palestinian athiest being arrested was not making logical derivations out of a discussion as to why he did not believe in God, he was slandering, maligning and insulting the religion in a very profuse way, in a muslim country. I'd wager he knew very well what he was doing and what were the consequences, probably it was just a pathetic attempt by him to bag sympathy from the western countries for gaining asylum there, nothing else.

Or maybe he believed what he said, and believed in his right to say it. Neither of us knows him, do we?

Its not surprising that athiests spoke up for him, but as it is, it is shocking that you can support a guy just because he distantly supports just the abusive athiest streak. He actually claimed to be God ( do athiests do that?), giving divine orders to his fans on the page, while telling them that they should smoke marijuana because its in the holy book? Are You serious? The guy seems sufficiently in need of mental health care, and I'm sure thats why he got arrested in the first place, his statements were getting out of hand.

You're not real up on the whole satire thing, are you?

If you're hoping to rule the world with that kind of thinking, I'm afraid you don't stand a chance, not atleast in the muslim population. Good luck anyway.

Nobody's trying to rule anything. We're just stating our views, kind of like the Palestinian atheist. Are you objecting to that for some reason?

So are you saying that Islam not only does not accept free speech, but there is no hope of ever changing that? Islam can never under any circumstances tolerate free speech?

 

[Autodidact]

And luckily I don't change my brand my of religion with every little cupcake that i come across. Thanks for speaking your mind out, I don't think I have to adjust my views to your savage mentality for you to like or approve my religion, It is what it is.

Can you discuss the issues without hurling personal insults at other people?

It's interesting that Muslims in this thread advocate against allowing people to insult others, but the only people doing it in this thread are Muslims. It's that double-standard thing.

[qutoe]The way you say "there should be no muslim countries" is enough for me to know what you hold inside for muslims and how you justify all the barbarism against them, as long as its coming from your side, Thanks for the opinion.[/quote] If Muslim = oppressive, as you claim, then every freedom loving-person must oppose Muslim government--not Muslim people.

 

[arimoff]

But is it civilized when Israelis retaliate with collective punishment?
Failing to behave in a civilized manner is not strictly a "Muslim" problem.

It is more a European problem.

 

[Meow Mix]

Seems to me it's more a "government everywhere problem."

There are no perfect governments on earth, all of them seem to have thugs in them. Just seems like some have more thugs than others and more openly institutionalize thuggery.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems to me it's more a "government everywhere problem."

There are no perfect governments on earth, all of them seem to have thugs in them. Just seems like some have more thugs than others and more openly institutionalize thuggery.

It seems to me that governments set up on the principle "God gave me the right to rule over you" are more conducive to thuggery than ones based on the principle "your approval gave me the right to rule over you".

 

[Meow Mix]

It seems to me that governments set up on the principle "God gave me the right to rule over you" are more conducive to thuggery than ones based on the principle "your approval gave me the right to rule over you".

I definitely agree, but even governments that have the best ideas "in principle" overstep those bounds and do stupid, barbaric crap that soils their ability to set a good example.

For instance my country, the "land of the free," put Japanese people in internment camps during WWII and more recently held "suspected terrorists" without habeus corpus or trials in secret prisons; and people high up supported the torture known as waterboarding. Oh let's not forget all the slavery and wresting the land from Native Americans forcibly and through trickery. Let's also not forget going to war in a country that we had/have no business invading because our officials lied to us.

It's like , how are we supposed to be setting a good example for freedom with a track record like that?

The idea and principles behind the American government and constitution are in the right place... but the government itself keeps screwing it up. It doesn't help that most of our population are idiots, either.