To Blaspheme or not to Blaspheme?

[lewisnotmiller]

I do not tell others what to do or believe, so do as they want

My point isn't whether you're telling them what to believe.
Would you remove the obituaries from the newspaper?

 

[Spirit of Light]

My point isn't whether you're telling them what to believe.
Would you remove the obituaries from the newspaper?

No i would not

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No i would not

Me either. But for some that runs contrary to their honestly held spiritual beliefs.

Now, I get that the example is a little forced, since Aboriginal spiritual beliefs aren't dogmatic in the same way some beliefs are. But my point is that we all do things which run contrary to others religious beliefs, whether it's squish an insect, have premarital sex, eat meat, wear mixed threads, name dead people or depict a prophet.

Should we be cognisant of others beliefs and opinions to the best of our ability? Well...sure, within reason. If anything, I'm generally overly considerate of such things irl. But we all do things that run contrary to others beliefs. Blasphemy laws only work by enforcing some beliefs over others.

Don't worry about us atheists and our non-beliefs...believers believe in all sorts of different things, and no-one can avoid transgressing these, even if they're foolhardy enough to try.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Me either. But for some that runs contrary to their honestly held spiritual beliefs.

Now, I get that the example is a little forced, since Aboriginal spiritual beliefs aren't dogmatic in the same way some beliefs are. But my point is that we all do things which run contrary to others religious beliefs, whether it's squish an insect, have premarital sex, eat meat, wear mixed threads, name dead people or depict a prophet.

Should we be cognisant of others beliefs and opinions to the best of our ability? Well...sure, within reason. If anything, I'm generally overly considerate of such things irl. But we all do things that run contrary to others beliefs. Blasphemy laws only work by enforcing some beliefs over others.

Don't worry about us atheists and our non-beliefs...believers believe in all sorts of different things, and no-one can avoid transgressing these, even if they're foolhardy enough to try.

Hehe my example with the atheists was not as a attacking force, i used that example because you know in my past i used to get really frustrated with atheists, i dont feel like that anymore.
I do think all people should be ato believe what they wish, without getting bullied by others. But yes i see that it is easy to take everyone under one view when a few are the once who harm others.

 

[stvdv]

If you mean that we should export our morals all over the world, then, no, I don't think so.

I agree with that, because that would mean I am evangelizing/proselytizing, I am not a fan of that

What about cultures that deny human rights and practice especially heinous **** like "bacha bazi"?

YES, that is a similar question that popped up in my mind too. Does the above mean I don't care or I don't impose or just too lazy or ...

When there was no internet/news/flights/boats, we did not know and they still did it. I did not know, so I did not need to act/think about it
Now with the internet it "happens" in our room. There is a saying "if you see injustice and you do nothing you are as guilty".

Then I see 3 options:
a) Get Self Realized
b) Switch of all news; which is do-able, and easier than the first option
c) When you see it you do something/anything (some can do more than others)

The good thing about internet is, that it is a 2 way. We can see them, and they can see us
So, if we show them a civilized and humane way will get the message; no need to tell them

Note:
Also we all know that tell others "you should" not always give the desired outcome
Some people do the opposite. So tell them "you should not" might give desired outcome
@stvdvRF

 

[stvdv]

You can't save them all, especially not those who don't want to be "saved".
We may use non violent measures like boycotts and we may discuss the morality of their "heinous ****" if they are up to it but all with the thought in mind that morality is relative.
I wouldn't want to live in a country where people are frequently legally killed (which is denying a basic human right) but what can or should I do when the people living there are OK with it?

Masochists live also in the West
So, the "they want not to be saved" part is relatively easy to solve.

More difficult it becomes when they want to be saved (that might be a larger group too). Is it our Dharma to interfere with other people's Karma/Dharma, when they don't live in our house, city, state, country, continent. Where do we draw the line to interfere with the lives of others? Some might ask, should we interfere with extraterrestrials?

My Master once called all overseas people in a meeting, and started to tell us "I want to tell you that you should not adopt Indian children and bring them to your country. In Italy (that was the group He singled out, probably they took the most children to their country) there are also plenty of family problems; better you solve your own problems and let India solve theirs"

Of course helping other countries is another issue then adopting single children. But this made me think twice "when to Help and when Not to Help". Usually when asked for help that is a good indicator to start from. Also good to help people help themselves.

 

[Father Heathen]

You can't save them all, especially not those who don't want to be "saved".
We may use non violent measures like boycotts and we may discuss the morality of their "heinous ****" if they are up to it but all with the thought in mind that morality is relative.
I wouldn't want to live in a country where people are frequently legally killed (which is denying a basic human right) but what can or should I do when the people living there are OK with it?

They may not want to be "saved", but what about those who are victims of their socially sanctioned abuse? I can't just shrug my shoulders at the rape or mutilation of children and say "Oh, well. That's just their culture." No, **** their culture.

 

[Heyo]

They may not want to be "saved", but what about those who are victims of their socially sanctioned abuse? I can't just shrug my shoulders at the rape or mutilation of children and say "Oh, well. That's just their culture." No, **** their culture.

I don't have to condone or be neutral towards things I find immoral. But all I can do is request to keep that behaviour to their countries. Everything else is cultural imperialism - which is immoral itself and has led to colonialism and wars in the past.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If the mocking stopped do you not think the evil deeds would stop too? Maybe it happens because some muslims feel targeted no matter what they say or do?

Since art concerning Muhammad was not always forbidden, how can Muslims forbid it with a straight face? I would sympathize more if I didn’t know I can google Muslim art.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yes, and that is of paramount important, otherwise Muslims will never live up to their ideal "Islam is a religion of Peace"; a goal not yet achieved

It’s not like Muslims can’t mock the mockers. Bonds can be strengthened by mutual humor.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Say what you want you wont be killed for it

Yeah people mock my beliefs. I mock my beliefs. I can take a joke.

 

[loverofhumanity]

To Blaspheme or Not to Blaspheme?

There is a huge difference between criticizing religions (being critical), as in "not blindly accept things", and blaspheming (the red part). It can be compared with the RF Rules. Criticize ideas all you want, just don't get personal, as in bullying, insulting or showing contempt.

RF Rules seem to be quite useful guidelines, and all can learn a lot from them


What are your thoughts on this subject? Would you do it differently than Macron did? Is this an important issue, needing to be solved?

Its common sense not to insult a person, their mother or beliefs. Freedom doesn’t mean freedom to hate, despise and incite. One does not need to accept Islam or its laws but deliberately making a mockery of Muhammad, knowing it upsets Muslims is despicable.

Extremists on both sides I believe are wrong and common sense needs to prevail.

 

[MNoBody]

To say I am a muslim may actually get me killed even here in Norway.

home of the vikings, it would,..... likely...the old ways never were eradicated by the roman god or any of the others, despite the token nod of convention

 

[MNoBody]

Those muslims who do those evil deeds are bad people no doubt about that, but its not even 1% of the worlds muslims who would even dream of doing that.

it doesn't take more than 1% to spoil the whole barrel though, since the rest of the world does not discriminate that finely....hence the need of this religious group to police themselves, to prevent the insane amongst them from doing something to give everybody else a bad reputation...those provocateurs......
a fellow who had been to dubai told me that one of the higher functionaries told him when he asked why there was no extreme terror in that place, and he said it was because of reprisals, since it was "well known" [but not openly] that if anyone messed around that way their entire family line would be destroyed, so apparently that threat was sufficient and the extremists look for softer targets elsewhere......things that make you go Hmmm.

 

[stvdv]

It’s not like Muslims can’t mock the mockers. Bonds can be strengthened by mutual humor.

The mockery was used to lay bare the incredible injustice done by the Muslims; we don't kill over Blasphemy ... in another country "for God's sake"

 

[stvdv]

It’s not like Muslims can’t mock the mockers. Bonds can be strengthened by mutual humor.

Are you sure about that?

It is not meant humorous the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, it is meant to point out something ugly done in name of Allah.

I think bonds can only be strengthened in "Humane actions", what they call Dharmic in Hinduism; Truth and Righteousness

I agree that mutual humor can strengthen bonds when it's about more innocent stuff; not when it's about Muslim terrorism though

 

[rosends]

Asking for clarification, re: the France/Muslim issue.

Is there any distinction to be drawn between "a picture which mocks the subject of the picture" and "a picture which, by its existence, regardless of form, flouts an underlying law about pictures"?

If the picture of Muhammed is not silly, mocking or insulting, but is "blasphemous" only in that ANY picture is not allowed, even one designed to be complimentary, is the nature of the blaphemy and the response to it different?

 

[stvdv]

Its common sense not to insult a person, their mother or beliefs. Freedom doesn’t mean freedom to hate, despise and incite. One does not need to accept Islam or its laws but deliberately making a mockery of Muhammad, knowing it upsets Muslims is despicable.

Extremists on both sides I believe are wrong and common sense needs to prevail.

True we should not insult others, BUT the main point Macron makes is that we should see the huge difference between the 2 violences done:
1) Charlie Hebdo publishes drawings in France, which is not Islamic, AND it has the right to do so as per their LAW; none of Muslims their business
2) Muslims kill French people in France for drawing a picture; again this is none of their business. This is a narcissistic power and control game

IF the second is violence 100 on the scale of 1 to 100
THEN the first is violence 2 on the scale of 1 to 100

Comparing those 2 types of violence is plain wrong

These Muslims (and all (non)Religious people) must learn 2 rules:
1) Never never impose on others your religion or your religious rules
2) What others do in their house, in their country is none of your business

Islam and Muslims claim they do not proselytize. They can fool themselves, but they don't fool me, nor will they ever fool Allah

 

[stvdv]

Asking for clarification, re: the France/Muslim issue.

Is there any distinction to be drawn between "a picture which mocks the subject of the picture" and "a picture which, by its existence, regardless of form, flouts an underlying law about pictures"?

If the picture of Muhammed is not silly, mocking or insulting, but is "blasphemous" only in that ANY picture is not allowed, even one designed to be complimentary, is the nature of the blaphemy and the response to it different?

According to below news report it seems to me there is no difference

b) China now also portrays Muhammad; I am curious if Erdogan and Pakistan PM tell China the truth like they did with France (05:54-06:54)

 

[rosends]

According to below news report it seems to me there is no difference

Should there be a difference or do the people posting here who have an opinion about what happened draw any distinction?