The hypocrisy of blasphemy: How can religion be against free speech?

[dismal]

No, I'll just leave you alone now.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I did link a global survey of Muslim attitudes recently. I'd say based on my experience here many people here disagree with beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Stoning for adultery, honor killings, death for apostasy, etc.

Aren't we discussing free speech though, primarily? All those issues are free speech issues. I think your typical muslim would understand how his idea of free speech is faulty, if indeed that muslim holds to the things you mention. JP's OP is right on IMHO because it exposes this faulty thinking.

And I take it you've never discussed your point personally with any muslims.

Wouldn't you say advocating death for blasphemy or apostasy is somewhat antithetical to free speech?

No. It's called speech. Not letting them say it is pretty much 'antithetical' to free speech.

Letting people say things, however, does not preclude all manner of legal monitoring of their actions to see if they are planning on killing someone. Because while freedom of speech is a thing. Absolute freedom of action isn't

Next time someone advocates beheading a journalist for drawing cartoons we should thank them for their contribution to the world of free speech instead of thinking they are against free speech.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Wouldn't you say advocating death for blasphemy or apostasy is somewhat antithetical to free speech?

You never walk out of your corner. If you ever did, you'd realize how many more voices would speak out against this very thing if they knew they freely could, without fear. And if they could, as we've seen happen in all progressive societies throughout history, your straw man just blows away.

 

[dismal]

Wouldn't you say advocating death for blasphemy or apostasy is somewhat antithetical to free speech?

You never walk out of your corner. If you ever did, you'd realize how many more voices would speak out against this very thing if they knew they freely could, without fear. And if they could, as we've seen happen in all progressive societies throughout history, your straw man just blows away.

Ah, it's odd that this has somehow become about me.

And not the widely available surveys on what Muslims actually believe.

Try this one:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Read it and come back and explain which of my positions is a strawman.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You never walk out of your corner. If you ever did, you'd realize how many more voices would speak out against this very thing if they knew they freely could, without fear. And if they could, as we've seen happen in all progressive societies throughout history, your straw man just blows away.

Ah, it's odd that this has somehow become about me.

And not the widely available surveys on what Muslims actually believe.

Try this one:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Read it and come back and explain which of my positions is a strawman.

Wow. What Muslims actually believe. Must be true. All of them.

You should realize that free speech is just like the freedom to bear arms is in this country. Just because you and I and every citizen has the right to bear arms, we're still not toting around mortars and grenade launchers, or mounting M60s in our pickup trucks. That's because we make laws.

Like I said, walk out of your corner.

 

[Togo]

Read it and come back and explain which of my positions is a strawman.

The bit about Muslims advocating death for apostasy, apparently.

Did you read it? I ask because it's a 32 page document, and you've provided no hint of which bit you believe supports you.

I certainly don't see the contradiction between allowing someone to advocate death to those who blaspheme, while still making murder illegal.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, I'll just leave you alone now.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I did link a global survey of Muslim attitudes recently. I'd say based on my experience here many people here disagree with beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Stoning for adultery, honor killings, death for apostasy, etc.

Aren't we discussing free speech though, primarily? All those issues are free speech issues. I think your typical muslim would understand how his idea of free speech is faulty, if indeed that muslim holds to the things you mention. JP's OP is right on IMHO because it exposes this faulty thinking.

And I take it you've never discussed your point personally with any muslims.

Wouldn't you say advocating death for blasphemy or apostasy is somewhat antithetical to free speech?

No. It's called speech. Not letting them say it is pretty much 'antithetical' to free speech.

Letting people say things, however, does not preclude all manner of legal monitoring of their actions to see if they are planning on killing someone. Because while freedom of speech is a thing. Absolute freedom of action isn't

Next time someone advocates beheading a journalist for drawing cartoons we should thank them for their contribution to the world of free speech instead of thinking they are against free speech.

Ah, here we go. Making <snip> assumptions about my position will get you less than nowhere. There is a difference between acknowledging that someone has every right to say a thing (strange, you seem so adamant to deny someone the right to merely speak freely, here, yet in other places you claim to value free speech!) without being silenced or physically attacked, and saying he also has some right to be appreciated for it. We have every right, and also every ethical responsibility to tell him and everyone else how and why such assholes are wrong, and to monitor them to see if them or their disciples are attempting to do more than merely talk.

 

[Angry Floof]

Yes, and? He's free to question my beliefs and offer evidence of what's dangerous. This goes without saying and adds nothing here. I'm not the one expecting, demanding, or asking that my beliefs be protected from questioning. Did you have some other point in regard to my comments?

No, I'll just leave you alone now.

OK... lol

 

[dismal]

Read it and come back and explain which of my positions is a strawman.

The bit about Muslims advocating death for apostasy, apparently.

Did you read it? I ask because it's a 32 page document, and you've provided no hint of which bit you believe supports you.

I certainly don't see the contradiction between allowing someone to advocate death to those who blaspheme, while still making murder illegal.

From Tab 4:

Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%). Roughly two-thirds who want sharia to be the law of the land also back this penalty in the Palestinian territories (66%). In the other countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region, fewer than half take this view.

In the South Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan, strong majorities of those who favor making Islamic law the official law of the land also approve of executing apostates (79% and 76%, respectively). However, in Bangladesh far fewer (44%) share this view.

A majority of Malaysian Muslims (62%) who want to see sharia as their country’s official law also support taking the lives of those who convert to other faiths. But fewer take this position in neighboring Thailand (27%) and Indonesia (18%).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No, I'll just leave you alone now.

OK... lol

Now I know where O'Reilly gets his material.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%). Roughly two-thirds who want sharia to be the law of the land also back this penalty in the Palestinian territories (66%). In the other countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region, fewer than half take this view.

In the South Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan, strong majorities of those who favor making Islamic law the official law of the land also approve of executing apostates (79% and 76%, respectively). However, in Bangladesh far fewer (44%) share this view.

A majority of Malaysian Muslims (62%) who want to see sharia as their country’s official law also support taking the lives of those who convert to other faiths. But fewer take this position in neighboring Thailand (27%) and Indonesia (18%).

Sounds the same as, "A good Indian is a dead Indian."

 

[dismal]

Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%). Roughly two-thirds who want sharia to be the law of the land also back this penalty in the Palestinian territories (66%). In the other countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region, fewer than half take this view.

In the South Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan, strong majorities of those who favor making Islamic law the official law of the land also approve of executing apostates (79% and 76%, respectively). However, in Bangladesh far fewer (44%) share this view.

A majority of Malaysian Muslims (62%) who want to see sharia as their country’s official law also support taking the lives of those who convert to other faiths. But fewer take this position in neighboring Thailand (27%) and Indonesia (18%).

Sounds the same as, "A good Indian is a dead Indian."

It's sounds the same as "millions of Muslims support death for apostasy".

 

[dismal]

No, I'll just leave you alone now.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I did link a global survey of Muslim attitudes recently. I'd say based on my experience here many people here disagree with beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Stoning for adultery, honor killings, death for apostasy, etc.

Aren't we discussing free speech though, primarily? All those issues are free speech issues. I think your typical muslim would understand how his idea of free speech is faulty, if indeed that muslim holds to the things you mention. JP's OP is right on IMHO because it exposes this faulty thinking.

And I take it you've never discussed your point personally with any muslims.

Wouldn't you say advocating death for blasphemy or apostasy is somewhat antithetical to free speech?

No. It's called speech. Not letting them say it is pretty much 'antithetical' to free speech.

Letting people say things, however, does not preclude all manner of legal monitoring of their actions to see if they are planning on killing someone. Because while freedom of speech is a thing. Absolute freedom of action isn't

Next time someone advocates beheading a journalist for drawing cartoons we should thank them for their contribution to the world of free speech instead of thinking they are against free speech.

Ah, here we go. Making <snip> assumptions about my position will get you less than nowhere. There is a difference between acknowledging that someone has every right to say a thing (strange, you seem so adamant to deny someone the right to merely speak freely, here, yet in other places you claim to value free speech!) without being silenced or physically attacked, and saying he also has some right to be appreciated for it. We have every right, and also every ethical responsibility to tell him and everyone else how and why such assholes are wrong, and to monitor them to see if them or their disciples are attempting to do more than merely talk.

I have not questioned anyone's right to say anything without being killed or punished by government.

I have said that someone who advocates killing or the government punishing someone for what they say is not taking a position that is consistent with free speech.

 

[bilby]

Sounds the same as, "A good Indian is a dead Indian."

It's sounds the same as "millions of Muslims support death for apostasy".

Millions of Americans support death for property crimes.

There is a big difference between advocating for the death penalty, and engaging in vigilante attacks on people.

Only a handful of Americans decide to take the law into their own hands, and go around executing those they believe to be criminals.

Only a handful of the millions of Muslims who support killing apostates believe that this should be done without reference to the law.

Lobbying for the death penalty may be distasteful, but it isn't terrorism, and it doesn't imply support for terrorism.

Lots of people have stupid and ill-considered ideas about what the law should be. Muslims are unexceptional in this regard.

 

[dismal]

Lots of people have stupid and ill-considered ideas about what the law should be. Muslims are unexceptional in this regard.

Lots of people have stupid and ill-considered ideas, period. Muslims have some very specific ill-considered ideas they tend to support in far higher numbers than others.

 

[bilby]

Lots of people have stupid and ill-considered ideas about what the law should be. Muslims are unexceptional in this regard.

Lots of people have stupid and ill-considered ideas, period. Muslims have some very specific ill-considered ideas they tend to support in far higher numbers than others.

[citation needed]

 

[dismal]

Lots of people have stupid and ill-considered ideas, period. Muslims have some very specific ill-considered ideas they tend to support in far higher numbers than others.

[citation needed]

Hope this helps:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

 

[AthenaAwakened]

[citation needed]

Hope this helps:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Excuse me please.

What exactly are you trying to prove with this link? After reading it, I'm not sure it says what you think it says.

 

[dismal]

Hope this helps:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Excuse me please.

What exactly are you trying to prove with this link? After reading it, I'm not sure it says what you think it says.

You don't think it shows millions of muslims believe things that are not very popular here?

Do we need to survey people here to find out how they feel about things like death for apostasy and stoning for adultery?

Or do I need to do a little math to demonstrate that this poll indicates millions of muslims believe in these things?

 

[Jarhyn]

No, I'll just leave you alone now.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I did link a global survey of Muslim attitudes recently. I'd say based on my experience here many people here disagree with beliefs held by hundreds of millions of Muslims. Stoning for adultery, honor killings, death for apostasy, etc.

Aren't we discussing free speech though, primarily? All those issues are free speech issues. I think your typical muslim would understand how his idea of free speech is faulty, if indeed that muslim holds to the things you mention. JP's OP is right on IMHO because it exposes this faulty thinking.

And I take it you've never discussed your point personally with any muslims.

Wouldn't you say advocating death for blasphemy or apostasy is somewhat antithetical to free speech?

No. It's called speech. Not letting them say it is pretty much 'antithetical' to free speech.

Letting people say things, however, does not preclude all manner of legal monitoring of their actions to see if they are planning on killing someone. Because while freedom of speech is a thing. Absolute freedom of action isn't

Next time someone advocates beheading a journalist for drawing cartoons we should thank them for their contribution to the world of free speech instead of thinking they are against free speech.

Ah, here we go. Making <snip> assumptions about my position will get you less than nowhere. There is a difference between acknowledging that someone has every right to say a thing (strange, you seem so adamant to deny someone the right to merely speak freely, here, yet in other places you claim to value free speech!) without being silenced or physically attacked, and saying he also has some right to be appreciated for it. We have every right, and also every ethical responsibility to tell him and everyone else how and why such assholes are wrong, and to monitor them to see if them or their disciples are attempting to do more than merely talk.

I have not questioned anyone's right to say anything without being killed or punished by government.

I have said that someone who advocates killing or the government punishing someone for what they say is not taking a position that is consistent with free speech.

The effect of your statement then, if you are not against these people having the right to say these things without government harassment, is that you wholeheartedly agree with their right to say those mean, nasty, offensive, and anti-democratic things. That while you disagree (perhaps vocally) you will not deny them any and every freedom of the press to say them, and more importantly that you will not lobby for any law nor press for any action to shut them up beyond the use of persuasion and reason.

I'm glad that you take such a high road. But if you really do, then what, exactly, was the point of pointing out here that their speech is antithetical to free speech if not to imply that their speech ought not remain free? What was your point in saying anything else in reply to my post other than'you're right, they certainly deserve the right to say those things, and we should certainly keep an eye on the ones who do?

 

[dismal]

But if you really do, then what, exactly, was the point of pointing out here that their speech is antithetical to free speech if not to imply that their speech ought not remain free? What was your point in saying anything else in reply to my post other than'you're right, they certainly deserve the right to say those things, and we should certainly keep an eye on the ones who do?

1) Check thread title. This is a discussion in which Muslim attitudes toward free speech seems somehow relevant.
2) Surely you understand you can disagree with something someone says and not advocate laws or violence to shut them up. At least some people are capable of separating the two.
3) When you asked me to clarify, I did. I hope you understand my position now.