Islam - How Awful Is It?

[JimC]

Continue denying there is such a thing as religious atheism and I will post the news article about the German atheist who murdered a Christian girl because of hatred for her religion and then posted an atheist manifesto in which he quotes Richard Dawkins.

I'm not denying that there can be extremist atheists, whose intolerance and hatred for religion can lead them to violence. I'm merely saying that to call them "religious atheists" is not a sensible descriptor...

[NineBerry]

But it's getting them riled up. Riling up extremists is a good thing.

[JimC]

Or perhaps oiled-up extremists...

[NineBerry]

People wearing tweed jackets aren't allowed to make naughty jokes.

[JimC]

Luckily for me, I just took mine off...

[Brian Peacock]

Oo, nice cardigan.

[pErvinalia]

You must respect that people are free to follow this faith in the bounds of general law. And you must refrain from inciting hatred against persons based on their membership in a cultural group like the Muslim communities. Both restrictions are based on the Declaration of Human Rights.

That Marxist document? Merkins don't have any need for commie shit like that.

I'm not sure where anyone gets the notion that they are entitled to other people's respect. Muslims are free, under the law, to practice their religion. Nobody needs to respect that, because not everything that is lawful is deserving of respect. What is deserving of respect varies from person to person. Some religious people don't respect atheism. Big whoop.

I know I'm asking for trouble here, but re-read what he wrote. He is talking about respect for the concept of religious freedom. Not respecting any particular individual.

It's not even a legal requirement to "respect" religious freedom. What if someone thinks there shouldn't be religious freedom. Some Muslim sects don't think there should be freedom of religion, except for their religion, and they can go about saying that and publishing their position on that. They don't need to "respect" freedom of religion. Likewise, nobody has to respect them, or their religion.

This has nothing to do with what either Nine or myself wrote.

"Must refrain from inciting hatred?" Absolutely not. I am free to hate, and free to express that I hate, a religion or set of religions, or all religion. The suggestion that I have to be gagged, while people practicing an ancient, obsolete cult have to be respected because they are free to follow their faith is absurd.

And inciting hatred isn't the same as hating someone or thing.

Very true. And, that's the difficulty with the "inciting hatred" standard. It doesn't tell us much about what is permitted or prohibited. Often, though, the term is interpreted expansively, and includes things like "There are too many Moroccans around here." Depending on who is uttering the sentence, and who is making the ruling, it may or may not be incitement of hatred.

It's not unreasonable to expect that people with a large public platform are more easily able to incite something than a regular citizen.

[pErvinalia]

I reject the notion that we can say that some forms of Islam, the really really extreme kind ,are bad, but we have to say that Islam itself - run of the mill - Joe Six-Pack Islam - is o.k. and good. No. Islam itself is conceptually, foundationally bad because (a) it's not true or completely unsubstantiated by fact or evidence - it's fundamental claims are not true, or must be taken as true without proof or evidence, (b) it's moral claims are highly questionable, at best, and even in its moderate forms contains and advocates ideas which are not good moral guides.

I certainly agree with this. But my views on religion aren't limited to Islam. The same applies to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and probably a fuckton more religions that I am yet to know the full details of.

I'm not sure how that changes the analysis.

Because you only mentioned Islam.

Right, but how does mentioning other religions "change" the analysis? Is something different when we don't mention other religions?

I don't know what you are going on about. I'm just pointing out that everything you mentioned applies to at least Christianity and Judaism, and probably a lot of other religions too.

[pErvinalia]

You have to respect other people's rights or else you are breaking the law. That's what the term "to respect" means when applied to a legal concept. It is not connected to how you are feeling, but it means that you do not overstep what you are allowed to do.

When for example someone says "Respect my privacy", this does not involve how you are feeling towards that person or how you are feeling towards the concept of privacy, it simply means "obey the rules regarding privacy that are established in our society".

Get ready for equivocation.

[pErvinalia]

Sure, they are, but the notion that one has an obligation to "respect" other people or their rights is absurd.

Oh, the State must respect individual human rights, but individuals do not. Individuals have to obey the law. So, a leftist progressive SJW doesn't have to "respect" the rights of a white supremacist, but the leftist progressive SJW should be jailed for assaulting the white supremacist. Do you follow?

It's the idea that we have to "respect" Islam or "respect" religion. No. I claim the right to treat religion, any religion, with ridicule and contempt, mockery, and revulsion. Respect? No. I don't have to.

If what you mean by "respect" is that I can't punch them or pull fire alarms to stop their worship sessions, etc., then sure, I agree with that.

Oh boo-hoo somebody did a bad thing once, therefore I don't have to respect people's human rights. Is equivocation the only thing you've got to bring to the table here? You know exactly what 'respect' means in the context of human rights don't you?

Sadly he doesn't. This is why I end up banging my head against the wall repeatedly when trying to debate him.

[pErvinalia]

As far as I can read, "M-103" means the parliament states that islamophobia is a bad thing and that some committee in the parliament will talk about ideas how to reduce racism. Doesn't negatively affect anyone.

It doesn't even define what the bullshit term Islamophobia means. It's a precursor to legislation meant to shut down mean comments about islam.

I disagree with the second sentence, but agree with the first. The term "Islamophobia" is so loaded. It's also not a slightly well defined term (in the socio-political context).

[pErvinalia]

I should have added "hypocritical" to my resume.

[pErvinalia]

Continue denying there is such a thing as religious atheism and I will post the news article about the German atheist who murdered a Christian girl because of hatred for her religion and then posted an atheist manifesto in which he quotes Richard Dawkins.

Religion requires faith. What faith do religious atheists follow?

[Hermit]

Take M-103 for example, in Canada. The whole idea is to "quell" the "climate of hate and fear" etc. This is a desire to control the thoughts and opinions of the people. They want to stop people from bad-mouthing Islam.

You are reading an intention into M103 that the motion neither expresses nor opposes. If the Canadian Crimes act and the Canadian Human Rights Act, both of which M103 seeks to have amended, finish up including words to the effect that criticism of any religion which leads to its adherents feeling offended or insulted is a punishable infraction of either law, your fears will be proven justified. At this stage, though, none of us can do no more than speculate about the outcome.

Ireland's blasphemy laws are another example.

What you call "Ireland's blasphemy laws" is actually Section 36 of the Defamation Act 2009. Either way it cannot be compared with Canada's Discrimination Act or Human Rights Act.

It states:

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—

(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and

(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

M103 does not propose anything of the kind, though, of course this does not exclude the possibility that at least some of Canada's lawmakers will seek to have such measures enacted when amendments to the relevant laws are formulated and debated.

Until and unless this happens you sound hysterical or dishonest.

[Svartalf]

Morons will be morons