Asia Bibi's blasphemy case in Pakistan

[Underseer]

Dunno if anyone follows the Friendly Atheist blog over at Patheos, but they've been covering the Asia Bibi blasphemy case (or at least, I occasionally see posts from them on Twitter about this):

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com...-asia-bibis-death-sentence-in-blasphemy-case/

In 2009, a Christian woman named Aasiya Noreen (a.k.a. Asia Bibi) got into a fight with Muslim co-workers over shared water — they said it was unclean because Noreen was Christian. During the fight, Bibi allegedly said she would not covert to Islam and that Muhammad was no prophet, a statement her co-workers took as an insult to their faith. It didn’t take long before her supposed act of blasphemy resulted in a death sentence from a Pakistani judge. That extreme ruling was upheld by an appeals court in 2014.

[ent]hellip[/ent]

Let's be perfectly clear: blasphemy laws are an affront to human rights, and the very concept of blasphemy is an affront to good sense. If your god needs to be protected from words, then your god is not a god. It really is that simple. Any blasphemy conviction in any country is an attack on human rights, but this is especially egregious.

What makes this worse is that they are angry at a non-Muslim for failing to believe in the tenets of the Muslim religion, and they tried to execute her for it. Worse, the instigating incident is that they got angry at her for drinking from the same cup as the Muslims were drinking from, thereby making it "dirty." The thing that started all of this was the Pakistani equivalent of having separate drinking fountains for non-whites like much of America once had.

As racist and bigoted as America is, we haven't had separate drinking fountains for decades, but apparently Pakistani Muslims are still murderously enraged by the thought of non-Muslims drinking from the same stuff they drink from.

So now of course massive protests are spreading all over Pakistan because she isn't going to be executed for drinking from the same cup as Muslims and for not believing the teaching of someone else's religion that Mohammed was a prophet:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nti-blasphemy-protests-spread-across-pakistan

Fuck you, Pakistan.

For any Christians reading this, this is a perfect example of why the founding fathers separated church and state, and why it's a bad idea for you to attack the walls that separate church and state. At one time, Puritans used their majorities in local governments to throw Baptists in jail for praying the wrong way. That's why Baptists used to be strong proponents of separation of church and state. But now that Baptists think they will be the ones calling the shots, now suddenly they think separation of church and state is a bad thing. Fuck.

 

[Lion IRC]

If blasphemy laws bother you then I presume you advocate free speech?
In Islam blasphemy is tantamount to hate speech.
Is hate speech a human right?

 

[abaddon]

If blasphemy laws bother you then I presume you advocate free speech?
In Islam blasphemy is tantamount to hate speech.
Is hate speech a human right?

"In Islam blasphemy is tantamount to hate speech."

Is that hatred, for a Christian to say Mohammed is not God's prophet?

Do you agree that's blasphemy, to say Mohammed is not God's prophet?

 

[Lion IRC]

If blasphemy laws bother you then I presume you advocate free speech?
In Islam blasphemy is tantamount to hate speech.
Is hate speech a human right?

"In Islam blasphemy is tantamount to hate speech."

Is that hatred, for a Christian to say Mohammed is not God's prophet?

In an Islamic State? Yes. They would regard that as the equivalent of what liberal Westerners call hate speech. (Just as a Christian in the West would be accused of inciting hatred against pet lovers if they said beastiality is an abomination.)

Do you agree that's blasphemy, to say Mohammed is not God's prophet?

No. But many/most muslims do.

Care to answer MY question as to whether hate speech is a human right?
It can't be one rule for white supremicists and fundies and a different rule for atheist/secular folks who think saying inflammatory stuff about the prophet is a human right.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If blasphemy laws bother you then I presume you advocate free speech?
In Islam blasphemy is tantamount to hate speech.
Is hate speech a human right?

That's horseshit. Have two drinks and call me in the morning.

 

[abaddon]

Care to answer MY question as to whether hate speech is a human right?

Yes, with restrictions when it comes to the likelihood of inciting harm that's worst than just annoyance or offense.

It can't be one rule for white supremicists and fundies and a different rule for atheist/secular folks who think saying inflammatory stuff about the prophet is a human right.

You understand it was a Christian lady who said "inflammatory stuff about the prophet", right?

Her alleged "inflammatory stuff" almost got her killed by fanatics. And for what? For not wanting to convert to their religion. This is one of the reasons church-state separation is very important. Theists are still screaming for this theist's death, because they're bent enough to feel offended about a person who doesn't share their religious views.

Reason necessitates that blasphemy should be a flat-out right or we (theists and atheists) endure inquisitions. So yes it can be one rule for when white supremacists describe one or more minorities in ways so vicious to the groups themselves that they incite people like Dylan Roof and Robert Bowers to go shoot blacks and Jews. And a different rule for atheist/secular folks who criticize and/or mock religions.

 

[Lion IRC]

First you said "Yes, with restrictions"
Then you said it should be a "flat out right" to speak words that someone else considers blasphemy.

I'm quite familiar with the details of the case. Restating it too me is unnecessary and irrelevant. It goes without saying that one person's loving affirmation chant is another persons outrageous blasphemy. So your invocation of the word "reason" as the measure of what is and isn't acceptable free speech is pretty naive.

My point was that outraged Muslims in Pakistan regard PBUH blasphemy as the sectarian equivalent of homophobic/racist hate speech. Lemme see if I can find some counter-example news stories about ANTIFA violence to prove my point. Bear with me. It might take me a while.

 

[Underseer]

If blasphemy laws bother you then I presume you advocate free speech?
In Islam blasphemy is tantamount to hate speech.
Is hate speech a human right?

Christians and Muslims think blasphemy is hate speech.

Christians and Muslims also think that asking them to stop persecuting homosexuals counts as persecuting Christians and/or Muslims.

Blasphemy laws are an affront to human rights.

Asking you to not be a dick to abused minorities is not an attack on your free speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Freedom from criticism would be the exact opposite of freedom of speech. So no, asking you to stop calling African-Americans the n-word does not make you a martyr for human rights like that woman facing a possible lynching for saying that a figure from someone else's religion is not a prophet.

It only seems that way to you because you honestly think you being criticized is as bad as someone else almost being killed. We expect that kind of arrogance and selfishness given that your religion teaches you that the entire universe was created just to have you in it, so of course you would think that a minor inconvenience to yourself is as bad or worse than the possible execution of a non-white Christian in another country.

 

[Lion IRC]

If you demand the (self-appointed) freedom to criticise certain opinions about religion (blasphemy) while not allowing others to equally criticise certain opinions about sexuality (homophobia) then you are a hypocrite - and you therefore forfeit any claim you might otherwise have to be considered objective.

You just blatantly admitted your own double-standard. That's special pleading.
Let me know how many red-necked racists and fundy islamists you manage to persuade with your do-as-I-say not do-as-I-do approach.

 

[JohnG]

I'm missing the point of the argument here I think - an angry society is lynching a person because she spoke freely. Are we arguing over the harsh punishment? or the disapproval in the first place?

The whole free speech thing is a blind spot for me. I've been meaning to start a thread on it but I don't know where to begin. I have to research first (I am conflicted)

 

[Lion IRC]

My main contention is that the Op rails against radical Islam's sensitivity when it comes to (what it considers) blasphemy, but happily ignores Western liberal outrage over "hate speech" which is unquestionably the post-modern secular version of blasphemy.

This is a brute double standard.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So the OP demonstrates that in Pakistan Islam doesn't tolerate free speech wrt religious claims. But the OP also ignores liberal outrage over hate speech, and there's some kind of double standard.

Someone is certainly confused.

I recommend less piety and more free speech. Everyone wins that way.

 

[abaddon]

My main contention is that the Op rails against radical Islam's sensitivity when it comes to (what it considers) blasphemy, but happily ignores Western liberal outrage over "hate speech" which is unquestionably the post-modern secular version of blasphemy.

This is a brute double standard.

No double standard. It's two different things. There's no secular version of blasphemy. That people want better respect for some disrespected groups isn't a case of making them into sacred cows.

Blasphemy is talking sacrilege about God or sacred things. No one's hurt by this. It's on par with jeering at a book, or mocking veganism. Some people might feel offended but that's not a serious harm to them. Anyone's mere sense of offense is not a good reason to curtail other people's freedoms.

Hate speech is legal in the US. Except in worst cases where it gets actually dangerous to people's lives.

That's a huge difference between blasphemy (not sharing the same ideas of the sacred) and hate speech (devaluing people's lives). The common denominator you want to emphasize is disrespect. But the common denominator that needs to be there is potential real harm.

The very notion of blasphemy is insane. If it were taken seriously, even persons outside a religion must honor that religion's idiosyncratic ideas about "the sacred". And one sect that hold some certain things sacred would be screeching about the blasphemy of other "heretical" sects, not just about atheists... I don't see how it could work, except that a theocracy establishes one religion for all.

 

[steve_bank]

A Saudi sent an email interpreted as offensive to Mohammed. He was extradited from Malaysia or Indonesia on a religious offense.

With the 19th century rise of modern Italy the Vatican lost its physical ability to enforce its requirements. The Office Of The Inquisition charged with enforcing religious conformity was changed to another name around 1900.

 

[Lion IRC]

Theres no secular version of blasphemy...Blasphemy is talking sacrilege about God or sacred things. No one's hurt by this. It's on par with jeering at a book, or mocking veganism. Some people might feel offended but that's not a serious harm to them.

How can you not see the blatant double-standard here?

If a homophobe mocks (jeers at) someone's sexuality, they would equally agree WITH YOU that, sure, it might offend but that's not a "serious harm" to them.

And yet we in the West have elevated misogynistic, homophobic, racist language to the level of taboo hate speech which is every bit as reviled and 'unspeakable' as blasphemy is to Muslims.

 

[abaddon]

How can you not see the blatant double-standard here?

By disagreeing with this next thing you say:

If a homophobe mocks (jeers at) someone's sexuality, they would equally agree WITH YOU that, sure, it might offend but that's not a "serious harm" to them.

And that homophobe would be wrong. I know people who were beaten. Others know of people who were killed.

And yet we in the West have elevated misogynistic, homophobic, racist language to the level of taboo hate speech which is every bit as reviled and 'unspeakable' as blasphemy is to Muslims.

What's their harm? Someone bullied them, beat them up, imprisoned them, tried to kill them? Specify what it is.

Perhaps you have been harmed. But not because of the blasphemy of atheists -- those are attacks on ideas. Years of spite against atheists because of the strong need of special deference to you is what's hurting you.

The OP talks about something horrible done to a person. You skipped over it to side with blasphemy, the harmful thing itself. You do that kind of thing in a lot of threads where the real topic is the great suffering of others because of dumb ideas.

Rethink that, will you? If your life is all about you, then what is your God-belief about? About you also?

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm not equating hate speech and/or blasphemy with physical violence. They are two different things. You'll get no argument from me that physical violence can cause "serious harm"

And I'm opposed to capital punishment so executing people for (sectarian) blasphemy or (secular) high treason are equally objectionable to me. So I'm not 'skirting' the Op - which I took to be about blasphemy (hate speech) not capital punishment.

Richard Dawkins equated religious education (words/ideas) with physical child abuse. So which is it? Can notionally offensive words - blasphemy, homophobia, racism, misogyny - cause harm to the hearer or not?

It can't be a subjective YES in the case of homophobia and an objective NO in the case of blasphemy.

You can't argue that only one type of hate speech might eventually lead to violence.
https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1939-1941/hitler-speech-to-german-parliament

 

[bilby]

I'm not equating hate speech and/or blasphemy with physical violence. They are two different things. You'll get no argument from me that physical violence can cause "serious harm"

And I'm opposed to capital punishment so executing people for (sectarian) blasphemy or (secular) high treason are equally objectionable to me. So I'm not 'skirting' the Op - which I took to be about blasphemy (hate speech) not capital punishment.

Richard Dawkins equated religious education (words/ideas) with physical child abuse. So which is it? Can notionally offensive words - blasphemy, homophobia, racism, misogyny - cause harm to the hearer or not?

It can't be a subjective YES in the case of homophobia and an objective NO in the case of blasphemy.

You can't argue that only one type of hate speech might eventually lead to violence.
https://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1939-1941/hitler-speech-to-german-parliament

But you CAN point out that some kinds of speech lead DIRECTLY to violence, and censure those, and only those, kinds of speech.

Incitement to violence might, possibly, include blasphemous language; But blasphemous language doesn't necessarily incite violence - and where it doesn't also incite violence, it should be allowed.

This really isn't hard, despite your desperate attempts to make out that it is.

Incitement to violence should be proscribed, whether or not it is blasphemy. Merely being blasphemous is an insufficient justification to declare that a particular instance of speech should be prohibited. Indeed, blasphemy is irrelevant. ONLY the question of whether speech is calculated to incite violence matters.

'Hate speech' and 'blasphemy' are unrelated ideas. There may be some overlap between them - things that fall into both categories - but the knowledge that a particular instance of speech falls into one of these two categories does NOT provide sufficient information to determine whether or not it falls into the other.

 

[steve_bank]

Not generally in the west but in other areas perceived blasphemy can and does incite violence. That stupid film mocking Mohamed made in the USA by an Egyptian Coptic Christian caused riots in Islamic places.

Someone from India who used to post here said there are rets ions on public religious commentary for that reason. Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus. All three have a history of religious violence in India.

Compared to the rest of t of the world North America including Canada and western Europe are very tolerant outside of Muslim extremists.

If you remember the Piss Christ art pike that was funded by a National Foundation For The Arts grant angered Christians, but there were no riots or violence. The recent anti Jew violence I would attribute in the USA to a small misguided minority sometimes linked to Christianity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not generally in the west but in other areas perceived blasphemy can and does incite violence. That stupid film mocking Mohamed made in the USA by an Egyptian Coptic Christian caused riots in Islamic places.

Someone from India who used to post here said there are rets ions on public religious commentary for that reason. Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus. All three have a history of religious violence in India.

Compared to the rest of t of the world North America including Canada and western Europe are very tolerant outside of Muslim extremists.

If you remember the Piss Christ art pike that was funded by a National Foundation For The Arts grant angered Christians, but there were no riots or violence. The recent anti Jew violence I would attribute in the USA to a small misguided minority sometimes linked to Christianity.

If muslims or christians or followers of the tooth fairy pull that shit in the U.S. they end up in jail.