It goes without saying that passing the death sentence on a person for uttering unwelcome words is incomprehensible to any rational humanist. So too is condemning to death a teacher for allowing children to name a teddy bear “Mohammed.” So too are other similar legalised barbarities and outrages against reason, as is also the essential misogyny of the Abrahamic religions’ inherent paternalism. Those are all yet more reasons why we don’t need religion.
'Luthon64
religion. again.
Welcome back GCG ;D
We have to bash SOMETHING to pass the time…
Hey BM, can you “ignore” a section of the forum? Might be just the thing that GCG needs, if she can ignore it at a press of a button, she wont have to subject herself to the section that annoys her?
On the other hand, her sarcasm is useful in this section too… :
Don’t think so no.
'Luthon64
from that report seems that Muhammad Faizan, the brainless one is the one blaspheming Muhammad’s name, Peace be to Him. :o
L Ron and Smith before him, proved any moron can start a religion.
That Mo (piss upon him) only bastardized an existing religion doesn’t say much really. His followers today pulling these kind of moronic stunts is about par for the course.
After the teddy-bear incident I renamed my dog, Mohamed, only he refused to respond. I can see why. I think I should get a little pot bellied pig and name him that from the start. Then again, what did any pig ever do to deserve such an insult?
I have been reluctant to contribute to this thread due to my extreme anger over the whole Mo thing. These people are absolutely insane! And it’s events like these that make me all the more adamant that religion is one of the most destructive forces on earth.
It is encouraging to see more people coming forward in the discussions following the news reports, pointing out that religion is responsible for these atrocities. A decade ago there was no platform for such people to air their opinions publicly. The Internet is changing the world.
Not sure if this have been posted anywhere else on the site, but I thought it would be appropriate for this topic. Salman Taseer, the governor of the Punjab province in Pakistan was killed by an elite forces security guard.
There were all sorts of protests last week by religious nut-cases and the burning of effigies of Taseer etc. He was very keen on fighting it, here is one of his posts on Twitter -
And this is the crackpot’s reasoning -
Say what you want about a politician, criticize the Pakistani cricket team, complain about their customer service, etc. - no problem. Dare to say anything about a non-existent imaginary sky fairy (Oops, I have probably upset someone) and death! He didn’t even commit the victim-less crime of blasphemy, he thought the law was silly and prejudicial - he is right of course (From what I have read, it seems that the law was put in place to give Islam special privileges).
Islam: the religion of peace.
(If you believe any muslim you ever talk to in the street)
General Beki Cele forgets that SA is a secular constitutional democracy where religion holds no sway over law enforcement:
One is left to wonder if Cele would also like to see disobedient children, homosexuals, Sunday workers, etc. put to death.
Elsewhere, a religious issue hampers Pretoria High Court’s pursuit of justice:
It’s precisely this widespread and unsustainable assumption that it’s okay to insist on unwarranted respect for religion that’s the wellspring of so much trouble. What is religious apparel doing in a secular court of law in the first instance? Would Mr Omar make an equally impassioned plea for the bloke appearing in a clown suit because he believes Bobo is god!? And what does this say about “equality for all before the law”? I think it’s obvious enough who’s really sporting their biases in this case.
'Luthon64
Isn’t the Bible simply a wonderful and astonishing book?? You can use it to justify eye for an eye vengeance and turn the other cheek pacifism as required. Inspiring really.
One has to agree with him on this one, though :-\ (from the same article.):
“That famous song that there are ‘no cars’ (to get to a crime scene), must stop…if there are no cars, there are shoes, you must walk …even those shoes are state shoes.”
A Pakistani court shows unusual leniency in a blasphemy case. The offenders get life instead of death:
This is state-sanctioned bigotry of the very worst kind that is only possible through blind, unquestioned belief. In fact, such belief needs these protections for its survival and virtually all religions clamour for them. If people generally bothered dispassionately pondering just that one aspect – i.e. why belief always insists on special safeguards – we might begin making some headway in ridding humanity of this scourge.
ETA: It occurs to me now that imprisoning not one, but two Mohammads could constitute a double dose of blasphemy, and so the court itself should be charged and put to death. Or is the difference between “Mo–” and “Mu–” sufficient to invalidate my contentions? Phew, this theology stuff is really hard… :
'Luthon64
I recall him also saying something like “We have no New Testament in SA Police.; There is no forgiveness, or turning the other cheek” ???
That would fall under the general heading of “Doing One’s Duty.” On the other hand, (mis-)citing mystical mumbo-jumbo from an old book containing outdated social mores in order to justify and motivate an approach – that falls under the general heading of “Talking Self-serving Tosh.”
'Luthon64