It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

Sarky

No, not at all, they said it was strictly to be used as a last resort, so you see it's all ok.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Terrific. You bang on and on about not getting a response a question that didn't deserve answering and when I finally do you immediately turn the conversation personal again.

Nice work ...

What answer? You side stepped as ever.

My patience with the joke of a notion that you actually give a crap about the treatment muslims and this isn't indeed a furthering of your attempt of a vendetta against this forum is limited.

MrPudding

Jernal wrote: »

Slightly OT but didn't we have a mod who condoned a husband beating his wife?

Hold on, context man. He said those those things in the context of a man physically abusing his wife and that abuse being justified by his religion. The way you say it makes it seem like he was saying it was ok to beat your wife. Seriously, I expect more from you.

MrP

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

What answer? You side stepped as ever. .

No sidestepping involved.

You ceaselessly demanded (as if it were necessary) that I explain the difference between some genuine artwork recreating a scene from Greek mythology and a pornographic image purporting to be the Islamic Prophet engaging in beastiality published by someone who considers Muslims in general as "cretins" and who had expressed his wish to inflame and offend any Muslims who may see it.

First I explained (as if it were necessary) that like anything else context is key. This wasn't good enough for you for some reason. I then explained by way of apt analogy. You then simply brushed this off and shrieked the utter nonsense which I know you can't actually believe to be true of "all caricatures are the same! No matter what!"

I then demonstrated again by way of example what rubbish your claim was.

You then started to get personal and have sadly continued in this vein.

Nodin wrote: »

My patience with the joke of a notion that you actually give a crap about the treatment muslims and this isn't indeed a furthering of your attempt of a vendetta against this forum is limited.

Why should I care about your patience? You are wrongly basing your opinions of my motivations on second-guesses you have made.

Brown Bomber

You have raised some interesting points which I promise I will respond to in due course. For now I just wanted to take you up on the the links you have provided - which actually show, as i've already said in this thread that when it comes to Islam that atheists and the religious right are two sides of the same coin.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Source



Source


.

MEMRI


MEMRI was founded by a former member of Israeli military intelligence along with corrupt Neocons like Elliot Abrams of Iran-Contra infamy and has many of dregs of the Reagan, Bush I and II administrations sitting on their board - the same ones who lied the US into war with Iraq such as Don Rumsfeld.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute

In short, MEMRI are not to be trusted.¨

See here
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2006/how-memri-doctored-finkelsteins-interview-to-portray-him-as-a-holocaust-denier/

and here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/15/arabicunderfire

Family Security Matters

Exposed as a front for Frank Gaffney's anti-Islam/Pro-war propoganda wing for the Neocons

http://mediamatters.org/research/2004/09/29/foxs-security-mom-expert-spouted-bush-cheney-ta/131969


You'd do well to choose your sources more carefully.

Banbh

If the new, improved Constitution, with the added incitement-to-hate-religion clause is brought into effect, where will that leave Boards and others? In practice this would be much more restrictive of freedom to oppose religious interference in our lives.
If one were to criticise an Israeli bombing raid or a Jihadist atrocity and be accused of anti-semitism and Islamophobia respectively, then these charges would be answerable in courts. The gardaí would have no option but to act on such complaints. At least with the present blasphemy law, there are sufficient loopholes to make it unworkable.
Ultimately I think someone needs to register atheism as a religion and apply for charitable tax relief and insist that nobody speaks ill of our 'belief'. It wouldn't be long before the whole nonsense was unworkable.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No sidestepping involved.

You ceaselessly demanded (as if it were necessary) that I explain the difference between some genuine artwork recreating a scene from Greek mythology and a pornographic image purporting to be the Islamic Prophet engaging in beastiality published by someone who considers Muslims in general as "cretins" and who had expressed his wish to inflame and offend any Muslims who may see it..

No. You're being very specific in your reference to the "muhammed" part, where at most I said "a cartoon".

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why should I care about your patience? You are wrongly basing your opinions of my motivations on second-guesses you have made.

No, no. I've had the same opinion since very early on.

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You'd do well to choose your sources more carefully.

Yes, and you'd do well to avoid logical fallacies in your arguments.

Poisoning the Well


In the case of the Abd Al-Rahman Mansour link, so what if it came from Memri. Are you claiming that Mansour didn't say those words? You can see the video of Mansour stating this for yourself here.

Egyptian Cleric Abd Al-Rahman Mansour Gives Guidelines for Wife-Beating in Islam

So, is this video falsified?

What about Siddiqi? Did he not state what the article quoted? Can you provide a link to counter his statement.

These were just a few links out of many. Quite a few Muslim scholars have documented their despicable views on wife-beating.

Take Sheikh Muhammad Kamal Mustafa. His book "A Woman in Islam" has been reported as basically a guide for beating your wife.

An Islamic guide on how to beat your wife

In the book he states:

"The beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm to the woman."pp. 86-87

Or what about Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi who also published a book called "The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam" where he states:

"If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts."

You can read the book for yourself here:

The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam


My point in all of this is that there are Muslim scholars and clerics, people who hold a degree of influence among ordinary Muslims who still sanction domestic violence. I think that I have substantiated this sufficiently, however, if the above is still not satisfactory then, in the words of Captain America, I can do this all day.

I think you'd be better off responding to the overall point.

Standman

I've just noticed that all of BrownBombers posts are hosted on Boards.ie, a site which began as a message board for players of the extremely violent (possibly Jewish) game called "Quake".

Excessive gaming has been linked by numerous studies to things like this, this and this.

Therefore I'm not sure if his posts are to be trusted.

Cabaal

Standman wrote: »

I've just noticed that all of BrownBombers posts are hosted on Boards.ie, a site which began as a message board for players of the extremely violent (possibly Jewish) game called "Quake".

Excessive gaming has been linked by numerous studies to things like this, this and this.

Therefore I'm not sure if his posts are to be trusted.

Nah, John Carmack (he owns ID Software) is an atheist.....oh and a man big into science and space!

But clearly Quake is about devils and evil so either BB supports atheists indirectly or some how likes demons that teleported in from hell?

Banbh

Blasphemy law anyone?

Sarky

Banbh wrote: »

Blasphemy law anyone?

No thanks, it's silly.

Standman

Cabaal wrote: »

Nah, John Carmack (he owns ID Software) is an atheist.....oh and a man big into science and space!

But clearly Quake is about devils and evil so either BB supports atheists indirectly or some how likes demons that teleported in from hell?

The plot thickens..

mbiking123

Pherekydes wrote: »

Puerile nonsense. Incitement to religious hatred would be something like "Burn the papists" of that well known Christian, Ian Paisley.

Applies to believers in any or no religion, both ethnically diverse and mono-ethnic, or where the hatred is against a person or group that does not share the beliefs of the perpetrator

So Christians who do not share the beliefs of an Atheist, so Atheists start using 'The Name of the Lord in vain'

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/06/what-does-it-really-mean-to-take-the-lords-name-in-vein/
'For most, the ultimate violation of the  third commandment, “You shall not take the Lord your God’s name in vain,” is to say “God damn it.”  You can use just about every other word or phrase, no matter how bad, but when your vulgarity includes the utilization of this phrase, many would believe that you have crossed the line. You might even be charged with blasphemy.'

Atheists using blasphemy against a believer is religious hatred

Pherekydes

mbiking123 wrote: »

Applies to believers in any or no religion, both ethnically diverse and mono-ethnic, or where the hatred is against a person or group that does not share the beliefs of the perpetrator

So Christians who do not share the beliefs of an Atheist, so Atheists start using 'The Name of the Lord in vain'

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/06/what-does-it-really-mean-to-take-the-lords-name-in-vein/
'For most, the ultimate violation of the  third commandment, “You shall not take the Lord your God’s name in vain,” is to say “God damn it.”  You can use just about every other word or phrase, no matter how bad, but when your vulgarity includes the utilization of this phrase, many would believe that you have crossed the line. You might even be charged with blasphemy.'

Atheists using blasphemy against a believer is religious hatred

At the risk of getting a rap on the knuckles...

There is a substantial difference between hatred and incitement to hatred.

Also, the third commandment does not apply to atheists.

Plus, blasphemy is only in the eyes of the offended. Plus, substantial numbers must take offence. Plus, there must be the intention to give offence.

mbiking123

Pherekydes wrote: »

At the risk of getting a rap on the knuckles...

There is a substantial difference between hatred and incitement to hatred.

Also, the third commandment does not apply to atheists.

Exactly, so you know it is an offence so an atheist uses it to cause insult. Bit like 2004 when the cartoon was done depicting Mohammed as a dog

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133395328/Prophet-Mohammed-Cartoon-Dogs-Swedish-Artist-Lars-Vilks

oldrnwisr

mbiking123 wrote: »

Applies to believers in any or no religion, both ethnically diverse and mono-ethnic, or where the hatred is against a person or group that does not share the beliefs of the perpetrator

So Christians who do not share the beliefs of an Atheist, so Atheists start using 'The Name of the Lord in vain'

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/06/what-does-it-really-mean-to-take-the-lords-name-in-vein/
'For most, the ultimate violation of the  third commandment, “You shall not take the Lord your God’s name in vain,” is to say “God damn it.”  You can use just about every other word or phrase, no matter how bad, but when your vulgarity includes the utilization of this phrase, many would believe that you have crossed the line. You might even be charged with blasphemy.'

Atheists using blasphemy against a believer is religious hatred

Well, first of all blasphemy as you have outlined it is a commandment so it is simply a biblical rule. It is part of the code by which christians are expected to live. Non-christians aren't and shouldn't be bound by it.

Secondly, most christians proclaim that Jesus' death fulfilled the law and so they're not bound by those rules either.

So how exactly you can get religious hatred from atheists not obeying a christian rule that even most christians state is obsolete is beyond me.

barney10

Nodin wrote: »

What answer? You side stepped as ever.

My patience with the joke of a notion that you actually give a crap about the treatment muslims and this isn't indeed a furthering of your attempt of a vendetta against this forum is limited.

Do you own this forum or somehow have control over it ??

gaynorvader

barney10 wrote: »

Do you own this forum or somehow have control over it ??

He doesn't, and I fail to see the relevance of your question?

Nodin

barney10 wrote: »

Do you own this forum or somehow have control over it ??

I suggest you submit your query to the oversight council.

barney10

Nodin wrote: »

I suggest you submit your query to the oversight council.

Oversight council ?

Nodin

barney10 wrote: »

Oversight council ?

Its the council that oversees.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

Its the council that oversees.

Not to be confused with the council that made an oversight.

Brown Bomber

Read a sad story tpday which highlights the very real and deadly dangers of the stereotyping many here defend.

A disabled Iranian man was burned to death by his white neighbours outside his home due to suspicions he was a paedophile.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10422771/How-wild-rumour-led-a-mob-to-murder-an-innocent-man.html

Both Mr Ebrahimi’s family and the police believe that in addition to his eccentricity, he was targeted because of his Iranian background. This racism, combined with paranoia of paedophilia, created a mood of toxic febrility. It must be acknowledged that most areas of Bristol are very tolerant; but it is equally important to recognise that some are quite the opposite.

Richard Hope-Hawkins is a Bristolian writer and campaigner whose partner is black. “I know a good upstanding black couple who are both in work and have two children,” he said. “They used to live in Knowle West, a few miles from where the Iranian man was killed. But they were hounded out twice because of racist abuse from local people.”

In 2009, a BBC Panorama programme, Hate on the Doorstep, sent two undercover Asian reporters to pose as husband and wife and live for two months on Bristol’s Southmead estate. They received almost daily physical and verbal abuse.

In one incident, one of the reporters, Amil Khan, was told not to walk on the pavement before being punched in the head by a man who said, “bye, bye Paki”.
Often — as in the case of Mr Ebrahimi — this racism is conflated with a fear of paedophilia, and becomes particularly toxic.
The Bristol division of the English Defence League, the far-Right street protest movement, has announced plans to hold a rally in the city in December.
Their intention is to protest two issues: the building of a mosque, and “paedophile grooming gangs in Bristol”. The underlying narrative is unmistakable, and reflects the attitudes that led to the killing of Mr Ebrahimi.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Read a sad story tpday which highlights the very real and deadly dangers of the stereotyping many here defend.

Well that's a complete ****ing lie. Why would you tell a complete ****ing lie about a tragic case like this?

shruikan2553

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Read a sad story tpday which highlights the very real and deadly dangers of the stereotyping many here defend.

A disabled Iranian man was burned to death by his white neighbours outside his home due to suspicions he was a paedophile.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10422771/How-wild-rumour-led-a-mob-to-murder-an-innocent-man.html

What stereotyping towards Iranians or immigrants have you seen here? This is the Atheism & Agnosticism forum. Unless he was a priest?

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

Well that's a complete ****ing lie. Why would you tell a complete ****ing lie about a tragic case like this?

What lie?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What lie?

Excellent.

PopePalpatine

How would a blasphemy law prevented his death?

Brown Bomber

Deleted User wrote: »

Excellent.

Did you misunderstand the question? You accused me of lying. I didn't. Therefore I would appreciate if you could tell me specifically where and when you wrongly think I have lied so I could clear things up for you.

Brown Bomber

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How would a blasphemy law prevented his death?

In general terms blasphemy can manifest itself through hatred. Hatred breeds hatred, Hatred can lead to violence up to and including murder.

A blasphemy law can filter out some this hatred that targets religious minorities. For example this from the city of the brutally murdered innocent man,

shruikan2553

Im still a bit confused on what a bunch of scumbags murdering a innocent man has to do with religion or lack of, never mind blasphemy.

Is it that if they had found Christ they wouldn't have killed him?

EDIT: Seeing the above I may be starting to work this out. We have laws against assault and murder for this type of thing. I dont see how this "person" would have thought "oh no, I better not say anything against his religion. What was I doing again? oh yeah, killing him"

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Read a sad story tpday which highlights the very real and deadly dangers of the stereotyping many here defend.

Sounds to me like you're highlighting the very real and deadly dangers of stereotyping posters in A+A.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Did you misunderstand the question? You accused me of lying. I didn't. Therefore I would appreciate if you could tell me specifically where and when you wrongly think I have lied so I could clear things up for you.

Point out to me where anyone advocated killing an innocent man?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A blasphemy law can filter out some this hatred that targets religious minorities.

Ok,

Let's suppose a dystopia where the EDL is in the majority. How do you think they'd use a law that allows censorships of perceived offensive remarks? If I said the EDL are a bunch of disgusting racists what sanctions would I face?
Freedom of speech is our most sacred treasure and in my opinion the law should always be weighted towards allowing offensive remarks because you never know when an offensive remark might actually one day be true.

More importantly though cultural acceptance cannot simply be coerced by a law. It's roots have to be integral in honesty and understanding. If those roots never exists then no matter what laws you have culture integration will never work. EDL folks need to become a minority and a law is never going to achieve that. Unless you plan on mass incarcerating and deaths!

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In general terms blasphemy can manifest itself through hatred. Hatred breeds hatred, Hatred can lead to violence up to and including murder.

A blasphemy law can filter out some this hatred that targets religious minorities. For example this from the city of the brutally murdered innocent man,

You realise the people that have hatred to other religious groups generally aren't interested in their deity, it's the followers that suffer their hate. How does outlawing critical speech/text about their deity protect them?

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Read a sad story today which highlights the very real and deadly dangers of the stereotyping many here defend.
{...}

Who here defends stereotyping?

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In general terms blasphemy can manifest itself through hatred. Hatred breeds hatred, Hatred can lead to violence up to and including murder.

Which is why incitement to hatred is an offence. Specifically incitement to hatred of people alive today.

A blasphemy law can filter out some this hatred that targets religious minorities.

Firstly this is entirely redundant, as we already have incitement to hatred as an offence which covers all instances, and by breaking it down into specific types of hatred we're simply adding unnecessary complication. Secondly, there's a lot of blasphemy, most of it in fact, that while a source of offence to some, does not constitute incitement to hatred. The old Persian pic you linked earlier depicting bestiality, some would find offensive. It could not however be construed as incitement to hatred.

Brian Shanahan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How would a blasphemy law prevented his death?

It wouldn't because a disabled, mentally ill person would be far more likely to commit a blasphemy than the likes of you or I.

recedite

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A disabled Iranian man was burned to death by his white neighbours outside his home due to suspicions he was a paedophile.

As you specify the skin colour of his neighbours, you seem to be assuming a racist motive. Then there is the mistaken paedophile allegations against him. But nowhere in the story is there any mention of the man's religion. He could have been an Iranian atheist who was forced to flee the theocratic regime due to threats to his life for the crime of "apostasy" for all we know.

Popinjay

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In general terms blasphemy can manifest itself through hatred. Hatred breeds hatred, Hatred can lead to violence up to and including murder.

While not exactly outright stating it, these lines do suggest that you are imlying that getting a good kicking, or indeed being murdered, are anticipateable and to-be-expected outcomes of blasphemous and/or religiously offensive statements.

Was that your intention or just an unfortunate by-product of your equivocating?

Brown Bomber

Popinjay wrote: »

While not exactly outright stating it, these lines do suggest that you are imlying that getting a good kicking, or indeed being murdered, are anticipateable and to-be-expected outcomes of blasphemous and/or religiously offensive statements.

Was that your intention or just an unfortunate by-product of your equivocating?

let's make this nice and simple. Which of the following points (which you've quoted) do you disagree with and why?

1. blasphemy can manifest itself through hatred
2. Hatred breeds hatred
3. Hatred can lead to violence up to and including murder.

Standman

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The thing is BB that there are things which are sanctioned in Islamic culture which are backwards and detestable and which has remained unchanged or retarded as you put it because of their religion.

Just take spousal abuse, for example.

Beating your wife is not only sanctioned in the Quran:

Men are in charge of women by

what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Surah 4:34


[We said], "And take in your hand a bunch [of grass] and strike with it and do not break your oath." Indeed, We found him patient, an excellent servant. Indeed, he was one repeatedly turning back [to Allah ].
Surah 38:44
(The context of this verse may not be entirely clear on its own. This verse depicts Allah directing Job to beat his wife).


This approval is also evidenced in various hadiths:


Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"
Sahih Al-Bukhari 72-715

(Mohammed doesn't admonish the husband for beating his wife and directs her to return to him)

I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it.
Sahih Muslim 4-2127

(That's Mohammed actually beating his wife)3


The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.
Sahih Abu-Dawud 11-2142


Now, historic evidence of the practice is not incriminating on its own. After all, I'm sure that domestic abuse was common regardless of society in this era. The damning aspect of this, however, is that the practice continues to happen and be sanctioned today.

A study by Human Rights Watch for example, found that 85% of women in Afghanistan experience domestic violence.

Afghanistan: Ending Child Marriage and Domestic Violence


Another study by the WHO found another high rate of abuse in Bangladesh

WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women


As I said above, not only does this practice happen but it is sanctioned by certain influential Muslims:
"These organizations have remained malignantly silent on the issue of the equality of women, their support of Islamism, and barriers against women’s rights in their interpretation of sharia. For example, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has said in April 2004 in a fatwa (religious opinion or ruling) for the popular Islamist site, Islamonline.net of the Muslim Brotherhood out of Qatar that,

“It is important that a wife recognizes the authority of her husband in the house. He is the head of the household, and she is supposed to listen to him…a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely. in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife…”

Source


Then there's Egyptian cleric Abd Al-Rahman Mansour:

Islam instructs a man to beat his wife as a last resort before divorce, so that she will mend her ways, treat him with kindness and respect, and know that her husband has a higher status than her.

Source


So, the basic tenets which allows men to justify their actions is present in the Quran. It has been practised historically as well as in modern societies and in some places this has been due to influential scholars showing approval of the practice. So the stereotype you speak of, at least in this regard, is justified. The moral structure of a culture has been impeded because of their religion.

Now, satire can be a very concise and incisive way of getting your point across, particularly when the overall point is highly complex. Now as much as you can disagree with the graphic nature of the image, underneath that there is a real criticism to be made.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have raised some interesting points which I promise I will respond to in due course...

Still waiting on your response to Oldrnwisrs posts..

Brown Bomber

Standman wrote: »

Still waiting on your response to Oldrnwisrs posts..

All in good time. There is a lot to respond to.

Brown Bomber

recedite wrote: »

As you specify the skin colour of his neighbours, you seem to be assuming a racist motive. Then there is the mistaken paedophile allegations against him. But nowhere in the story is there any mention of the man's religion. He could have been an Iranian atheist who was forced to flee the theocratic regime due to threats to his life for the crime of "apostasy" for all we know.

Don't speak for me please. I know and what you now can know is that he was a Muslim.

Racism is part of Islamophobia. People are targetted because they "appear" Muslim. For example this Gap advertisement was recently vandalised with anti-Muslim graffiti even though it featured a Sikh fashion designer.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Read a sad story tpday which highlights the very real and deadly dangers of the stereotyping many here defend.

A disabled Iranian man was burned to death by his white neighbours outside his home due to suspicions he was a paedophile.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10422771/How-wild-rumour-led-a-mob-to-murder-an-innocent-man.html

Nobody here defends stereotyping. Either provide quotes or stop the nonsense please.

Racism is part of Islamophobia. People are targetted because they "appear"
Muslim. For example this Gap advertisement was recently vandalised with
anti-Muslim graffiti even though it featured a Sikh fashion designer.

And your point.......?

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't speak for me please. I know and what you now can know is that he was a Muslim.

Racism is part of Islamophobia. People are targetted because they "appear" Muslim. For example this Gap advertisement was recently vandalised with anti-Muslim graffiti even though it featured a Sikh fashion designer.

{...}

Your posts taken as a whole seem to be racist. Why do you keep constantly bringing up acts of racism only against Muslims? There's plenty of other racism in the world.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

let's make this nice and simple. Which of the following points (which you've quoted) do you disagree with and why?

1. blasphemy can manifest itself through hatred
2. Hatred breeds hatred
3. Hatred can lead to violence up to and including murder.

1. "not eating sprouts" can manifest itself through hatred (of sprouts)
2. Hatred breeds hatred
3. Hatred can lead to violence up to and including murder.

Therefore, people who hate sprouts, are murders?

shruikan2553

Brown Bomber wrote: »

let's make this nice and simple. Which of the following points (which you've quoted) do you disagree with and why?

1. blasphemy can manifest itself through hatred
2. Hatred breeds hatred
3. Hatred can lead to violence up to and including murder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnFr-DOPf8

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't speak for me please. I know and what you now can know is that he was a Muslim.

Racism is part of Islamophobia. People are targetted because they "appear" Muslim. For example this Gap advertisement was recently vandalised with anti-Muslim graffiti even though it featured a Sikh fashion designer.

people are targetted because they look Muslim, and yet a as you point out, it was a Sikh in the fashion designer.

So some knuckle-dragging racists have a problem with middle-Eastern people and it's somehow Islamophobia? Outlawing blasphemy will have no tangible impact on those sort of people.

If all Muslims that aren't white were Christian, you can be guaranteed the racists would still target them.

I really don't understand how someone who engages in blasphemy can be considered to be comparable to a racist.