This case of four Pakistanis in court for various blasphemy charges is quite scary. And sometimes you don’t even know your accuser so you can face them in court. And what is this with religious sensibilities? Can’t god take a joke? And why be so uptight about what others say of your religion? This reminds me of the comments of the inquisitors, why show mercy anyway and you are going to hell.
Religion has to have laws to protect it because it can’t stand on its own merits. How do you make someone truly believe. It’s like forcing someone to like rotten meat…or this blog…hehe
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jim, not fair…. you have likened this blog to rotten meat 🙂
very few religionists would be willing to accept this
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hahaha. It is in fact a great blog. But the religious certainly can’t deny that the religions get serious props and protection. Why else would they need it. Even blasphemy laws. Atheism is punishable by death in 13 countries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
blasphemy, rightly defined, is an offence against the priest or imam or whatever the religious leader is. And if you go far enough, the wishes of the priest and of god are usually aligned.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And yet in this country, before the law of blasphemous libel was repealed, it was the mainline churches that were most vocal in advocating its removal from the statute books. Their argument was quite logical, but made somewhat tongue in cheek: God doesn’t need the protection of the state.
They also argued that in a pluralistic society, and an increasingly secular one, such law has no place.
On the other hand, the howls of protest coming from the few fundamentalists were so loud, they were probably heard way over in Kenya.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Barry. God wouldn’t need protection…if there was one. People’s feelings is more like it. Great comment. Good to see you sir
LikeLike
It’s interesting, however, that god had always needed protection in some way. Look at the laws given in exodus & Deuteronomy such as stoning your neighbour for worshiping a different god or the warning in the new testament to be not unequally yoked. In essence, any view contrary to the orthodox should be shunned or shut.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. And really, religion is only tolerable and surviving because it’s watered down. Orthodoxy/fundamental worship is distasteful, but really the way it’s designed to be.
LikeLike
I am not surprised that the loudest were the minority. What is surprising is they didn’t succeed in getting their way. Most of the time, there is asymmetry in how laws are made; the minority always getting their way, if they are quite a number and are adamant
LikeLike
This is Aotearoa New Zealand. Extreme views of any sort are generally not tolerated here.
LikeLike
Hope it stays that way for long time to come
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why does God need a starship?
(Sorry for the Star Trek Geekery)
LikeLike
Scary stuff. We’re moving slowly toward this in the US.
LikeLike
It’s scary. It is 1984 all over again, except, this is real time
LikeLike
Truth stands on its own and defends itself; lies require the legal protection of authoritarian censors and gatekeepers. Not just in Islamic countries, but in western nations as well. The New Zealand government has made it illegal to download, possess, distribute or view the shooter’s video and manifesto and further restricted the rights of its citizens to protect themselves against threats of violence by demanding they turn in their weapons — thus enacting the very things he stated he wished to come about as a result of committing this atrocity.
LikeLike
Since I don’t come from a place with many gun owners, I don’t understand the obsession with guns.
As to downloading and distribution of the said shooting- I am indifferent. What reasons did they give for such an extreme measure?
My beef with most governments is what they call state secrets or concealing information from the citizens in the name of national security.
LikeLike
The obsession isn’t with guns, so much as the right to self-defense.
The manifesto and video were deemed “objectionable” materials:
https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/christchurch-attacks-press-releases/#christchurch-attack-publication-the-great-replacement-classified-objectionable
LikeLike
So help me understand something…if the mosque victims had all been armed, scared civilians pulling handguns out of their robes and shooting randomly at who they thought was the shooter would have resulted in fewer deaths how exactly?
If trained cops and soldiers panic and kill people randomly, I never understood how armed untrained civilians letting loose in a crowded theater, market, (or mosque) would be a positive situation. But then, I am not an ammosexual, so have never felt the need to stock up on the heavy weaponry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why would the armed civilians be shooting randomly when the gunfire was heard coming from the hallway? And given that practically everyone in the building died anyways, how could the risk of being killed by a stray bullet from those shooting in self-defense pose any greater risk than that of being totally unarmed?
LikeLike
In order for blasphemy to be a criminal offence, doesn’t there have to be a state or official religion? So who determines the criminal sentence? The judge? Naked hugs!
LikeLike
well, in majority Muslim countries, there is no separation between state and church/ mosque, so to speak. Though even Ireland just recently repealed its blasphemy laws. For blasphemy laws to be instituted, all you need is a small minority of intolerant assholes
LikeLiked by 1 person