…and this is a 
Don't ever call atheists militant, except where they do something like this. A governor in Pakistan has been killed for opposing blasphemy laws.
Interior minister Rehman Malik said the killer was a member of Mr Taseer's own security team, who quickly confessed to the crime and who had apparently worked for the governor on five or six previous occasions.
"He confessed that he killed the governor himself because he had called the blasphemy law a black law," Mr Malik said.
"He has confessed his crime and surrendered his gun to police after the attack," he told reporters.
That's militancy. That's closed-mindedness. That's fanaticism. That's intolerance.
Everytime those apologetic wankers who object to blunt speech apply those adjectives to people who simply write articles and books, they're weakening any objection we might have to the real zealots.
Comments
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
January 4, 2011 4:08 PM
But surely you can recognise the pain one must feel when someone wants to remove the thing that stops others from insulting his heartfelt convictions... ;)Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
January 4, 2011 4:09 PM
When was the last gnu atheist massacre?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
January 4, 2011 4:10 PM
He managed to underscore the governor's point with his vile violent act.
Do not expect the irony to overwhelm him any time soon.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: glenister_m
|
January 4, 2011 4:18 PM
Note to self: If the need ever arises, choose your own bodyguard(s) rather than have them appointed.
I'm curious what the final public outcome will be:
A) Martyrdom for victim - "He was killed for what?? Let's get rid of that blasphemy law!"
OR
B) Martyrdom for killer - "He did his moral duty, and all charges against him should be dropped."
Much as I would hope for A, I fear it will probably be B...
Posted by: Rillion
|
January 4, 2011 4:20 PM
Wait, what?
Why do you think that a bodyguard who would kill someone for opposing blasphemy laws is an atheist? I must be missing something here.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 4, 2011 4:21 PM
Goodness, that's even more militant than asking a Mormon for evidence of pre-Columbian Jews in America.
Posted by: Moggie
|
January 4, 2011 4:22 PM
Facepalm @ #5.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
January 4, 2011 4:24 PM
They massacre eternal souls, sending them to eternal torment--God being powerless before godless mortality.
See, so that's far worse.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Dick the Damned
|
January 4, 2011 4:26 PM
Well, Islam is the Religion of Peace, isn't it, so they can't have any blasphemy corrupting their peace, can they?
Posted by: JagyrEbonwood
|
January 4, 2011 4:27 PM
This bears repeating. Disagreeing with the majority opinion isn't militant. Being outspoken isn't militant. Respectfully criticizing a position isn't militant. DISrespectfully criticizing a position isn't militant. Even making an organized attempt to convince the majority that they're wrong and you're right isn't militant.
You know what IS militant? Threatening violence against those that disagree with you. Killing people because they politely object to being labeled as criminals. Actively fostering intolerance toward a persecuted minority.
You want to cry militant? Come back when more than 80% of the population are avowed atheists, and a law is proposed to make it illegal to badmouth Dawkins, and a state official gets murdered because he thinks the law isn't a good idea.
[/rant]
Posted by: Kit Finn
|
January 4, 2011 4:28 PM
Ironic that it makes a member of Pakistan's government a martyr for freedom of speech.
Posted by: oihorse
|
January 4, 2011 4:30 PM
Ug. The whole concept of the militant atheist trope just so intellectually dishonest. It's got the poisoning the well fallacy and straw man fallacy just to start.
That story has been rolling around in my mind all morning.
It's exactly what I've been waiting for to send to people that keep trotting out the militant atheist trope. First I'll have them define what they think is a militant atheist and then see if they can actually name some of those militant atheists.
I bet the list will match the all the 'dicks' out there.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 4, 2011 4:30 PM
When was the last gnu atheist massacre?
doesn't that imply there was a first?
I can't recall that one, either.
nor any in between the first and last.
but then, my mind always gets fuzzy about things that never existed.
Posted by: marcus
|
January 4, 2011 4:30 PM
@#5 & #7 No I get it. PZ's sentence would have been a little clearer if he had used "unless" instead of "except" (only when). Pedant/
Posted by: JagyrEbonwood
|
January 4, 2011 4:32 PM
@ Moggie #7
To be fair, I read it the same way as #5 at first.
@ Rillion #5
It should be read "Don't call atheists militant - here's an example of what militancy really looks like."
Not "Here's what a militant atheist looks like."
Posted by: James F
|
January 4, 2011 4:34 PM
Dhorvath #2:
Christopher Hitchens vs. Tony Blair?
Posted by: simondavis79
|
January 4, 2011 4:38 PM
Actually the term 'militant' is not synonymous with violent-this is a common misconception. MLK referred to himself as militant in interviews and nobody was committed to non-violence more than he was.
But yes, violent extremism takes any of this to a whole new level.
Posted by: KG
|
January 4, 2011 4:38 PM
Well, be fair. Opposing the death penalty for blasphemy is obviously blasphemous, so he had it coming. And anyone who says otherwise is obviously blaspheming too. As is anyone who denies that. Or that. Or that...
Posted by: Dave Gilbert
|
January 4, 2011 4:43 PM
Once again, the outcry against this atrocity from the non-militant Muslim community is deafening.
Posted by: Nij
|
January 4, 2011 4:43 PM
So much irony involved that the price of steel took a 60% drop in the hours since that story broke.
This is why I dislike all forms of religion. They define an ingroup and an outgroup, so tightly that those in charge can arbitrarily put a specific person in or out on whims (that old bit about "power corrupts" wasn't pulled out of a hat, if you know what I mean) with absolutely no way of questioning their claim or disproving it, and worse, they give the common people an excuse to have someone in or out along with justification for extremist acts against the outgroup.
In/Out bullshit is bad enough, but when you get someone deciding it on the basis of "He's out because he never gives me free meals" or "She's in because this one time back in high school she went on a date with me", then you may as well reinstate slavery and make it official: your life is owned by them.
A' course, we atheists don't have that problem, 'cause o' being indy-pen-dint murral a-jints and stuff.
Posted by: Boomer
|
January 4, 2011 4:48 PM
JamesF @16
Bazinga!
Posted by: Tualha
|
January 4, 2011 4:49 PM
I would say, more precisely, that they're weakening the meanings of those words, and thus weakening objections that use those words (objections to anything, not just zealotry). But "closed-mindedness" is already pretty watered-down, and "intolerance" has been used to describe mere speech and attitudes for decades. Both apply often to religious thought, and seldom to freethought, but they're a little weak to properly describe a murder motivated by a difference of opinion. "Fanatical" covers the closed-minded and intolerant aspects, but with appropriate strength. We might also say atrocious and theocratic.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
January 4, 2011 4:49 PM
Ichthyic
Well, that was the point I was angling for. Disagreements shouldn't end in death.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 4, 2011 4:49 PM
Opposing the death penalty for blasphemy is obviously blasphemous, so he had it coming.
I just went and read some of the commentary posted on various related news articles.
It was indeed sad to see that around a quarter of the responses in some places FAVORED the actions of the murderer, and kept saying things like "Westerners just don't respect our traditions"
*sigh*
so, what will happen becuase of this, is that people who would fight to try and maintain peace and rationality in Pakistan will flee, because it isn't worth their lives to do so.
which means less people arguing against things like blasphemy laws
which means even more extremism will be favored
which means less support will be given by western countries
which means they will get ever more poor
which means they will get ever more radical
think North Korea, Iran, etc etc etc.
this is the likely path, but I would hold out minor hope that somehow this man will somehow serve as a martyr, to rally the last vestiges of sanity in a nation becoming awash with fear and inane religious dogma falsely viewed as "tradition".
or else we end up with yet another nation with nuclear capability that has become a black hole of despair and stupidity.
Posted by: Rillion
|
January 4, 2011 4:49 PM
@15 Thanks. :-)
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 4, 2011 4:51 PM
Those with god(s) on their side can only kill with knives, guns, and bombs, but we Gnu Atheists can kill with mocking words. It's like we're the House Atreides/Fremen soldiers from David Lynch's Dune.
The next time someone accuses me of being an atheist fundamentalist, I'm going to look at them with narrowed eyes, point my fist at them like I'm holding a weirding module, and chant Muad'Dib until their head explodes or they run away, whichever happens first.
Long live the fighters!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 4, 2011 4:51 PM
Well, that was the point I was angling for.
just fleshing it out for fun.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 4, 2011 4:52 PM
Very good point.
It's a Godwin style offense to call the merely obnoxious "militants", "fundamentalists", "fanatics" or so forth.
And fuck, obnoxiousness is a fundamental human right.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 4, 2011 4:53 PM
It's like we're the House Atreides/Fremen soldiers from David Lynch's Dune.
*BREAK!*
Posted by: baldywilson
|
January 4, 2011 4:53 PM
@Dick the Damned
@Dave Gilbert
Dick and Dave. What. Fucking. Religion. Do you think the prime minister was?
Fuck you both. A muslim man is murdered for supporting free speech, and supporting freedom of association, and you condemn *him* - whether you noticed it or not - because his murderer happened to be of the same religion as him. Think, for one in your lives, before spouting such clichéd bullshit as "muslim kills, ergo muslim == killer".
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
January 4, 2011 4:57 PM
Brownian,
Your weirding ways won't work on me.
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian
|
January 4, 2011 4:58 PM
There is more about this in the Guardian.
Salman Taseer murder throws Pakistan into fresh crisis
Posted by: Moggie
|
January 4, 2011 5:04 PM
What a fucking mess.
The BBC has some Pakistani reactions here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12114420
And the ISI will investigate the killing. Oh hey, that'll go well, won't it?
Posted by: sqlrob
|
January 4, 2011 5:06 PM
Preacher claiming Prop 8 would stop gays from molesting children arrested
Make your guess on what for before clicking the link. I'm predicting there will be near 100% success rate in the guesses here.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
January 4, 2011 5:13 PM
Just amusingly...I wonder if a stranger came up to you in a country like Pakistan, which just had this shooting, and someone asks 'Do you approve of this?' how many people are actually going to say no, considering one of the most powerful men in the government was just murdered in broad daylight?
Posted by: Nij
|
January 4, 2011 5:18 PM
baldywilson,
You may be surprised to learn that the murderer did so BECAUSE OF HIS BEING A FUCKING MUSLIM.
The murdered man was standing up against oppression of basic rights IN SPITE OF being a Muslim.
See the difference there? I'll try it again just in case: the man was murdered for doing something against Islamic law while the murderer was doing exactly the thing required of him by Islam. Yes, that's correct: Islam itself requires the death penalty for blasphemy, and to question the Prophet's Words is itself nearly an instant damnation. To say that "Muslim kills, therefore Islam bad" if they are killing because of something Islam fucking commands them to do is perfectly justifiable.
Posted by: Klatu
|
January 4, 2011 5:19 PM
Clearly you heathens can't see the obvious sophistication behind a religious mindset.
Surely this was an act of mercy!
Just think of how insecure that poor bodyguard(?) must have felt when this vile abomination of an atheist defiled his peaceful religion with militant acts of criticism. Surely this was self-defense!
Think of The Children™! They must be protected from the immoral clutches of the Atheist Conspiracy™!
This man is a hero for selflessly defending his mild theology!
But you heathens will never understand these sophisticated nuances of faith.
Posted by: Nij
|
January 4, 2011 5:22 PM
Fraud? Damn.Uh, incitement to treason? Fuck!
Okay, gonna go out on a limb here, and say something completely random... is it, child molestation, maybe? I know, that's a really out-of-it thing to say, but there's a first time for everything.
Posted by: Dave Gilbert
|
January 4, 2011 5:29 PM
@ 30. baldywilson, I doubt whether Salman Taseer identified his victim as a Muslim for saying what he did.
Moreover, in view of your comment, I would have thought that non-millitant Muslims would put up some kind of protest.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 4, 2011 5:31 PM
I would have thought that non-millitant Muslims would put up some kind of protest.
The impression I get is that everyone is afraid the situation will escalate into mass violence, so everyone is staying indoors and shutting up for the present.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
January 4, 2011 5:32 PM
@39
Pray tell, how did the recently murdered Salman Taseer victimize anyone?
The artical does a disservice by giving only the thousands who approve of the murder and doesn't report on any Taseer support facebook pages or the like in good numbers. We kinda need that to judge.
Posted by: Dick the Damned
|
January 4, 2011 5:35 PM
baldywilson @ 30
I don't know what the prime minister's got to do with this. But I guess you're referring to Punjab's governor, Salman Taseer.
The fact that the victim was also a Moslem doesn't change a thing, so keep your hair on, baldy. Oh shucks, you can't, eh. (I'm just coming down to your level.)
The fact is that there are moderate Moslems, but they tend to keep quiet. One can't help thinking that the fanatics might just be making them a tad nervous. The fate of Salman Taseer, a brave man, provides some justification for that.
Posted by: Dave Gilbert
|
January 4, 2011 5:37 PM
@41 Sorry Ing, read the article to say Salman Taseer was the murderer not the murdered. Mah bad.
Posted by: baldywilson
|
January 4, 2011 5:38 PM
.You mean, the non-millitant type of muslim who was just assassinated. The non-militant type of muslim who attained the position of prime-minister in Pakistan, and was betrayed by his bodyguard? The type of non-militant muslim that you are trying to pretend does not exist, whilst commenting on a story of that very same type of non-militant muslim who was murdered?
What do you bloody well want? The fucking president of a muslim country speaks out against bigotry; is killed for his efforts by an extremist murderer, and you still want to live in the fantasy world where muslims are all extremists. On what planet do you spend most of your life?!
Posted by: ophelia.benson
|
January 4, 2011 5:39 PM
One liberal Muslim who is protesting is Tarek Fatah.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
January 4, 2011 5:42 PM
I rarely come down on the side of religion/Islam especially but I do think you're not seeing the full scope of this. He spoke LOUDLY.
Posted by: Dave Gilbert
|
January 4, 2011 5:42 PM
@44 an n of one isn't significant.
Posted by: OriGuy
|
January 4, 2011 5:43 PM
I'm not a Muslim, and not familiar with Islamic law, but apparently you are, so perhaps you can cite where in the Qu'ran or Hadith this is stated.
Since this just happened, the op-eds condemning or praising this have probably not been written, but this article in Al Jazeera is pretty critical.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
January 4, 2011 5:45 PM
@48
The Quaran does say that those who turn away from Islam are to be killed. Their islamic friends are the ones who are supposed to raise the first arm basically. Of course this is just taking the same order from the Bible, so...yeah.
Posted by: baldywilson
|
January 4, 2011 5:47 PM
Bollocks.
Moderate muslims don't make good press. Unless they happen to be assassinated, of course, but by and large moderate muslims do not make good press.
Moderate muslims do not keep quiet. They're practically begging to be heard, but they're not. Don't blame moderate muslims for your filtering your understanding of islam through the same media most readers of this blog apparently despise.
And while we're on the subject, even overlooking the fact that "muslim condemns violence (page 10, 1 column-inch)" does not make new: why the bloody hell should it? Why presume that "Stephen Green, dick-head, calls for murder of gays" does not require christian leaders to condemn Stephen Green, but "obscure muslim cleric heard by 5, calls for murder of apostates" apparently requires nothing less than a page 1 apology on behalf of all muslims by some imam in every fucking national paper in the western world?
Posted by: Ternon
|
January 4, 2011 5:47 PM
I was thinking the same thing.
Posted by: John Harshman
|
January 4, 2011 5:48 PM
My first impulse is to put this down as evidence that Islam is a particularly nasty religion, but I don't think that's fair. Christianity has had the good fortune to have been partially domesticated by a long history of friction against civil society. Before that, and in places where that hasn't happened, no big difference in nastiness. I expect Islam will go through a similar process in any place where civil society exists.
And aren't we glad for that civil society?
Posted by: raven
|
January 4, 2011 5:52 PM
Y'all can't see how religion is the only source of morality either right now.
So where are all the moderate Moslems? Not a good question. However many there are, they are all afraid of getting shot and joining the governor of Punjab.
Posted by: Loreo
|
January 4, 2011 5:54 PM
From the previously linked Al-Jazeera article:
Posted by: KG
|
January 4, 2011 5:54 PM
No response from Muslims condemning the assassination? From the BBC:
From the same report, it appears Taseer may have been a genuinely admirable politician - a great rarity in Pakistan, and indeed hardly common anywhere. You can see the scumbag who murdered him grinning as he is driven away. Pakistan was already in a deep crisis; this is not likely to end well.
Posted by: baldywilson
|
January 4, 2011 5:54 PM
I see. Sorry, a Pakistani governor* (*with thanks to dick) opposing violence, and being assassinated for it, is not significant. You're not really a bigot, you're just concerned about the statistical significance of a muslim opposing violence and being murdered for it. The statistical significance of the murderer being muslim is, of course, far greater that the statistical significance of the religion of the murdered.
Posted by: Dick the Damned
|
January 4, 2011 5:56 PM
Baldy,
I've got moderate Moslems in my extended family. I don't hear much condemnation of extremism from them.
Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas
|
January 4, 2011 6:00 PM
Dick: When was the last time you heard condemnation of fundamentalist Christian terrorism?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 4, 2011 6:02 PM
Why presume that "Stephen Green, dick-head, calls for murder of gays" does not require christian leaders to condemn Stephen Green, but "obscure muslim cleric heard by 5, calls for murder of apostates" apparently requires nothing less than a page 1 apology on behalf of all muslims by some imam in every fucking national paper in the western world?
wtf?
where did you get that idea?
In this place, all religious inanity is equally condemned, and all moderates are commonly called on to condemn extremists of all stripes. The vast majority of us here indeed DO frequently condemn moderate Christians for not being outspoken enough against their radicalized brethren.
your attempt at baiting is noted.
and laughed at.
I also notice you deliberately avoided Nij's rejoinder to your point at #36, who clarifies the point he was making.
I would argue that extremism is not necessarily a part of "Islamic Law", and that its similarly debatable whether the blasphemy law is required by the Qur'an (seems more an attempt to placate the extremists for political gain to me).
that said, and arguments over the interpretation of ridiculous Abrahamic texts aside, the underlying point that this wouldn't be an issue without the overriding sense of "moral justice" that people tend to project from their religious texts is a valid one.
without Islam, without religion itself, laws requiring the execution of "rabble rousers" are MUCH harder to establish.
it's quite hard to provide a secular justification for such things.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 4, 2011 6:03 PM
Really, how else are we to tell one Arab from another?
Posted by: Ternon
|
January 4, 2011 6:13 PM
What the fuck?
A person who defends the most wicked, the most irrational anti-human reason law is an "admirable politician"?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 4, 2011 6:13 PM
Maybe on this blog, but it's not common elsewhere. Further, the question "where are all the moderate Muslims?" is often used not to criticise moderate Muslims for a lack of voice, but to imply that they don't exist.
Maybe both baldywilson and I are overly sensitive, but I think it's worthwhile to examine arguments for racism masquerading as anti-theism.
Posted by: baldywilson
|
January 4, 2011 6:16 PM
I have extended family too,
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 4, 2011 6:17 PM
:-)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 4, 2011 6:19 PM
A person who defends the most wicked, the most irrational anti-human reason law is an "admirable politician"?
um, somehow I think you got this backwards.
Taseer was allegedly killed because he was AGAINST the blasphemy law.
or at least, that's probably ONE of the reasons; there appears to be some speculation as to there being more politics involved as well.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 4, 2011 6:20 PM
Posted by: Moggie
|
January 4, 2011 6:20 PM
#61:
Which law are you referring to?
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
January 4, 2011 6:21 PM
From the Al Jazeera article posted by origuy @ 48:
It can happen here (with apologies to Sinclair Lewis) Psalm 109:8
“Men will never be free until the last
kingmullah is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” - (with apologies to) DiderotPosted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 4, 2011 6:21 PM
Much of my immediate family is Catholic. I don't hear them apologising for idiotic actions by other Catholics, let alone those of every other Christian sect.
Course, they're white and therefore individuals, so why should they have to?
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 4, 2011 6:22 PM
@46: @44 an n of one isn't significant.
Because we are clearly discussing a statistical distribution under controlled collection conditions, rather than the evolution of a narrative, right?
Fuck, folks just like to throw out truisms. Do people just have a table of responses they throw out robotically? You do know that a large "n" by itself isn't "significant" without a statistical analysis of the distribution -- and here it's not even clear what your data set would be? Throwing out sciency type words doesn't make a statement scientific.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 4, 2011 6:22 PM
I think it's worthwhile to examine arguments for racism masquerading as anti-theism.
examine?
sure. Nobody here would really deny that there exists bias against Muslims in the West any more.
...or vice versa for christians in primarily muslim countries, for that matter.
However; construct strawman arguments as bait like baldy did?
fuck that.
I'll challenge that every time.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 4, 2011 6:23 PM
Statistical significance is not the only, nor the most important, kind of significance.
Sometimes a n of one is significant.
This is one of those times.
Posted by: raven
|
January 4, 2011 6:25 PM
Dennett said it best.
"Religion is the best vehicle for social conflict ever invented."
For proof, just read the news every day.
Islam is currently ahead in the ugly violence race but xianity used to be at least in the running. The difference is that a lot of brave people spent centuries prying the churches' cold, dead hands off of political and social power.
Still a ways to go, of course.
Posted by: Moggie
|
January 4, 2011 6:26 PM
#69:
Ahem.
Posted by: asidity
|
January 4, 2011 6:28 PM
@OriGuy (#48):
I know of two places in the quran that tells you how to deal with blasphemy.
One: Chapter 5, verse 33. The language here is vague - it says "those that wage war against Allah or Mohammed", but Muslim apologists often cite this verse to show how forgiving Allah can be. The verse gives 3 options on how to deal with them - kill or crucify them, cut off opposite hands and feet, or exile them; the last option showing how "merciful" Allah can be.
Two (this one is more clear, I think): Chapter 9, verse 12 - "if they...defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief"
Posted by: raven
|
January 4, 2011 6:39 PM
So what. The bible says the same thing. Apostasy and heresy are death penalty offenses.
The biblical penalty for blasphemy is stoning to death.
Posted by: profetadamiao
|
January 4, 2011 6:40 PM
Hello, I am Brazilian and I follow this site because I find your articles very sensible.
Recently, we atheists Brazilians have suffered defamatory attacks in print, coming from religious people. There was a case of a television reporter called "criminals" all those who did not believe in god. More recently, a Catholic cleric, in a newspaper interview, said that militant atheism was to torture terrorist. However, despite being only 2% of the population, have triggered the court whenever we are slandered, because according to our Constitution, we are a secular state.
This is a tremendous ignorance or bad faith use of these "believers". Because, honestly, never heard of that militant atheism - as Dawkins calls it, has made attacks against the physical integrity of someone.
In fact, I remember having read somewhere a single case of a terrorist attack attributed to an "atheist, " but then found that he was mentally ill. Not to mention the Soviet Communists, but in fact was not well atheism, since these countries had communist members of the deification of the dome of communist governments. So such terrorist acts and intolerance are not related to atheism, but this deification.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
January 4, 2011 6:41 PM
warning: bile inducing cynicism
I don't know what you're all complaining about, Pakistan is a democracy, an ally to the US and killing blasphemers is Perfectly Legal Under the Pakistan Criminal Code
/stomach churning cynicism
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 4, 2011 6:57 PM
Thankfully, it's only punishable by jail time in another of the US' democratic allies.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
January 4, 2011 7:06 PM
More US Allies with blasphemy laws:
Ireland, is far more civilized about blasphemy: you can only be fined 25,000 Euros ($33,000), have your premises invaded by the police and the "offending matter" confiscated.
Posted by: truthiness2010
|
January 4, 2011 7:22 PM
Correct on Ireland.
We actually have the requirement for a blasphemy law written into our constitution so, without a referendum to amend same, the government of the day is obliged to keep and update this ridiculous legislation.
The Irish Constitution as a whole makes for some disturbing reading for secularists.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
January 4, 2011 8:52 PM
"Fight" could just as easily mean argue with as murder. PZ fights Ken Ham and other creationist leaders with his wit and hard facts.
Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger
|
January 4, 2011 8:52 PM
truthiness2010:
Couldn't they simply give 'blasphemy' a ridiculously narrow definition, and/or give it a ridiculously low fine? (Say, a 1-penny fine for a direct insult on the parentage of the head of a church, or some such?)
Posted by: ylangenberg
|
January 4, 2011 9:36 PM
An atheist may be militant and passionate about personal opinions, but does not have a 'holy' book that proscribes/supports particular actions to assist in the enforcement of those opinions on others.
The organized religions on the other hand do. Removing the personal responsibility factor of personal actions when done in the name of God. God made me do it, I was following orders.
Whether a religious person is lukewarm, moderate or fundamentalist is just a point of interesting debate. I think we need to get away from the whole moderate vs fundamentalist thing.
What are the 'moderate' bits of the 'Holy' books and what not? If these books supposedly reveal The Truth, even for 'moderates', then how do they reconcile living by some and not other 'revelations' of these truths?
There is absolutely nothing irrational or evil displayed in the actions of Taseer's killer. The moderates are really less rational. Belief some magical things, but not others.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
January 4, 2011 10:14 PM
Sigh.
And this, only 2 days after a (yes, Muslim) Pakistani friend of mine posted the following on his facebook page:
"[Pakistan] will not be a country ruled by mullahs with a divine mission" -- Jinnah
It inspired a heated debate... about how much the Bhuttos were to blame for being so corrupt as to make the "religious fundos" look attractive by comparison.
Islam is a violent, misogynist belief system, just like the other Abrahamic religions. But to imply that being a Muslim makes you more violent than being some other religion? That's wrong, and likely racist. Sure, moderate Muslims don't seem to get much media coverage... but for some reason, I've never had too much trouble finding out what moderate Muslims think about events like these. Maybe it's because of personal acquaintances, maybe it's because I actually care about people rather than stereotypes. FYI, generally moderate Muslims are unhappy about religiously inspired violence, just like most "normal" people.
Posted by: Friendly
|
January 5, 2011 1:26 AM
Today I read http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_al_qaida, about the bombing of the Coptic church in Cairo. I found this section very disturbing (bolding is mine):
I love freedom of speech, but I'm willing to grant that society can be justified in limiting speech that attempts to persuade a second party to murder a third party. I would think that even the security forces of a regime as weak and corrupt as Mubarak's supposedly is, if they truly knew about this material BEFORE the bombing, would have wanted to take actions such as -- I dunno -- getting the hosting websites to remove it, shutting down the sites that didn't, and maybe trying to identify and lock up the posters. Oh, and possibly securing the targeted churches, or at the very least WARNING THEM.
I guess it's not hard to believe that these unnamed security officials, being aware of a popular video that INSTRUCTS people to bomb a specific set of places at specific times, would choose to do...pretty much nothing about it. But I'd rather not.
amicably and sorrowfully,
Friendly
Posted by: pelamun
|
January 5, 2011 1:29 AM
As I said on another thread, Pakistan has only four provinces, two of which have the majority of the population, so to say that n=1 does not matter is quite idiotic if I may say so. It so happens that Punjab is the most populous province, with cities such as Lahore and Islamabad, so the murdered governor happened to be one of the most powerful people in the country. Yeah, very insignificant...
I know a lot of moderate Muslims in moderate Muslim countries, but do not forget that similar to Catholicism, Islam has a tendency to claim the kids for its religion just after they're born. Indeed, in many families the pressure to keep up appearances is high. So I've met many Muslims in name only that would easily qualify as nonbelievers in the West. There is of course also a number of moderate Muslims that believe.
But ultimately I believe the development of a truly moderate Islam is more difficult than it was for Christianity because Muslims believe the Qur'an was divinely inspired and directly represents the word of God (whereas the Bible was written down by men, so there is room for error there), thus leaving (almost) no room for errors or updates. This is what makes me skeptical about efforts such as the "Euro-Islam" idea. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Generally speaking, I have been seeing an increasing degree of Islamic fundamentalism in many moderate Muslim countries (this has been most pronounced in the Arab world, where in many places pan-Arabism is dead and has been replaced by Islamism, at least by the population, often to a higher degree than the respective governments originally wanted), and I find this trend troubling. Of course you can find some troubling trends in Christian countries as well, but in my view the presence of a large number of nominally Christian but thoroughly secular Western nations constitutes an alleviating influence here (with the possible exception of the US, but even there constitutional barriers are still firmly in place)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 5, 2011 1:41 AM
I find this trend troubling.
well, that's one way to put it.
terrifying would be another.
Posted by: Friendly
|
January 5, 2011 2:28 AM
@pelamun #87:
That might be true. I've heard some encouraging things about the (supposedly) moderate strain of Islam that's centered on the Islamic schools of Tunis, but I don't know how significant or effectual that movement is.
While moderate and liberal Christians will admit this, 99% of fundamentalist Christians -- and I used to be one -- believe that every word of the Bible was breathed out by God, was merely TRANSCRIBED by men, and is literally true unless the preacher they listen to says it's supposed to be a prophecy or an allegory (like, for example, the Song of Solomon, which is a story with lots of naughty bits that you shouldn't read except with the correctly prayerful attitude). Some significant subset of those folks believe that the King James Version is the only inspired TRANSLATION of the Bible. I don't recommend saying things like "the Bible was written down by men, so it has room for error" in the presence of such people. They will be happy to correct your heretical views.
amicably,
Friendly
Posted by: arkestrate
|
January 5, 2011 2:44 AM
For all his flaws, Salman Taseer was one of the very very few in Pakistan - aside from MP Rehman and Asma Jahangir, who called publicly for the repeal of the blasphemy laws. His death can either lead to:
i) People becoming more low-key in regards to their opposition, to the point of not supporting any parliamentary action against the blasphemy law. The manner in which he was killed basically told people "look, we can get to you anytime, anywhere, so watch your tongue."
ii) People getting so fired that more public support grows, and laws are passed to repeal, or at least begin a repeal, of the BL. Despite what it might seem like - even to me, and I'm living in Lahore at the moment - there are large numbers of people - not just students or the affluent, but the working and working-middle class too - that are tired of what's happening, and who want an end to the BS. Watching ordinary people beat seven shades of hell out a mullah is glorious sight...
Now, on a side note:
A) Could we drop the whole sarcastic "Islam is religion of peace" schtick now? Yes, we know that it's not, no more than Christianity post-Constantin, but it's no more a "religion of war", like any other faith system out there. At this point its essentially an annoying meme, akin to people on io9.com going "nuke it from orbit" all the time...
B) The name Bhutto was brought up a couple of times here, and it's fairly relevant as it was Zulfiqar Bhutto who initiated the whole appeasement towards the mullahs, what with the banning of alcohol, putting the blasphemy law on the table, and calling Ahmedis non-muslims (why do you think most Pakistanis in Pakistan don't know that there was a Pakistani Nobel Prize winner in Physics?). General Zia was horrible, and took the Islamic thing to horrific lengths, but it was ZB that started the whole ball rolling.
C) I also get tired when people - such as Dave Gilbert et al - moan about the lack of 'moderate Muslims' in times like these, or in general. I was raised in a moderate Muslim family, half of my family is made up of Sufi and moderate Muslims. Some of my friends and relatives in Lahore protested in anger last night at the death of Salmaan Taseer. There's a growing population that rejects the militant Islam that's festering here, but I guess it doesn't make for great TV. The funny thing is that Jinnah - the founder of Pakistan, to put it simply, since that was a complex situation in of itself - was essentially Muslim in a C of E manner.
Posted by: pelamun
|
January 5, 2011 2:49 AM
Friendly, you just made my point with
I wouldn't go as far as saying that Enlightenment would have been impossible without it, but such an attitude towards the scripture greatly facilitated the process of secularisation in most of Europe.
But even there you get your occasional fundamentalist, I had one in my high school class..But we never got around to discussing the Bible, because fundamentalist Christians were never taken seriously in our school. I do remember a party one night, where there was a moderate Christian (a member of the Socialist Youth), questioned for hours by members of a "young patriot" organisation about her faith, asking her to justify her faith (ironically enough those young nationalists were atheists). They came up to a point where her sole argument just consisted of "I just believe" with no further argument. At 4am everyone was mostly asleep anyways. Sorry for rambling off...
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 5, 2011 2:49 AM
Watching ordinary people beat seven shades of hell out a mullah is glorious sight...
now THAT'S a youtube video I would pay to see!
Posted by: clamcyp
|
January 5, 2011 3:02 AM
Looks like Pakistan is nearly as bad as the U.S. When did you last murder a surgeon for carrying out an abortion?
Maybe not so bad, though -
What, and risk their lives?
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 5, 2011 3:22 AM
Just one comment (#32) reports the fact that Taseer was a supporter of Asia Bibi, a Christian woman on death row under Pakistan's shariafied blasphemy law. Condaleeza Rice phoned the Afghan govt. a few years back, and stayed an execution of a convert to Christianity (illegal under Sharia law); why can't BHO phone the tinpot Paki president and arrange a similar deal for Asia Bibi?
Posted by: pelamun
|
January 5, 2011 3:23 AM
clamcyp, let's keep our proportions here. When was the last time a member of the Secret Service killed a member of the Cabinet or a member of the National Guard (or whoever provides protection to governors) the governor of California out of religious fanaticism?
I hope the story was aprocryphal, but don't forget that Pakistan is the country where a doctor was jailed because he threw away the business card of a pharma rep, who happened to have the first name Muhammad (again thanks to the celebrated blasphemy law)...
Posted by: pelamun
|
January 5, 2011 3:32 AM
ABQ, Christians sentenced to death for blasphemy are usually pardoned by the President at some point or the other, when the row has died down, it's been a kind of perverse pact between the fundamentalists and the elite: the government keeps the law, and the fundamentalists look the other way when the President pardons the condamned. Now we have to see if the President will still dare to pardon her (though I understand the legal process if far from over)...
Posted by: arkestrate
|
January 5, 2011 3:45 AM
@Ichthyic
Remind me, and I'll see what I can do. :)
The hate that people here have for them...oh boy...
As angry as I was in my last comment, I will agree that until there's a radical shift, Pakistan's gone. Right now, it's a weird terrorist Interzone.
For reasons that no one seems to understand, PTV (Pakistan Television, the state tv channel), will, after midnight, have the news in Arabic. o_O I've lived in Jeddah for a few years, and I don't recall ever seeing Saudi 2 switching over to Urdu.
Also, search for "PIA" and "1960s" "1970s" posters. Big difference from nowadays.
Posted by: kai.extern
|
January 5, 2011 5:58 AM
And that (and references to Stalin and Pol Pot) is why I think drawing the line between religion and atheism is either missing the point, or else needs a redefinition of religion.
The problem, in my opinion, is having a holy book to create in-groups and out-groups and not allowing people to question any of the three. The right word to use, here, is not religion, I think, but ideology.
Communist Russia wasn't on our side, it was on theirs. You find everything you mention above actually happening there, with due reference to the holy scriptures by Marx, Lenin, et al.
I think the test has to be: Is there anything that looks like a holy text, which can be used to bludgeon other people's arguments? Is it possible to denunciate people for crimes that you do not actually have to prove, where you can interpret completely normal behavior as proof? Are different opinions criminalized? (Or for non-government constructs, read "severe sanction" for criminalization and so on.)
That (or something along those lines), I think, is the measure we should use.
Posted by: lamanga2004
|
January 5, 2011 7:29 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12116764
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani declared three days of national mourning and appealed for calm.
However, some religious leaders have praised the governor's killer and called for a boycott of the ceremonies in Lahore, says the BBC's Orla Guerin in Islamabad.
Five hundred scholars from the moderate Barelvi sect of Sunni Muslims have warned that anyone who expresses grief over the assassination could suffer the same fate.
"No Muslim should attend the funeral or even try to pray for Salman Taseer or even express any kind of regret or sympathy over the incident," said the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat Pakistan in a statement.
It said anyone who expressed sympathy over the death of a blasphemer was also committing blasphemy.
-----------------------
What about if you simply feel sympathetic? Does that warrant being murdered in cold blood? Fucking retards.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2011 7:39 AM
In case anyone was wondering, this is one of the new hysterics of the Tea party right wing morons. ABQ is just making sure he stays in lock step with their
talkingblubbering points.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2011 7:44 AM
Oh and ABQ you incredibly fucking dense moron.
The linked article states plainly that
Blasphemy, which carries the death penalty in Pakistan, has been a very volatile issue, with particular focus on the case of a young Christian woman accused of blasphemy.
But good for you
*head pat
You've fulfilled part of your daily requirement of repeating talking points from your right wing idiot masters.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
January 5, 2011 8:34 AM
ABQ, lay off the racist slurs, please.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2011 8:37 AM
That's about as likely as ABQ laying off the stupidity.Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 5, 2011 9:18 AM
@kai.extern: The right word to use, here, is not religion, I think, but ideology.
Not quite -- ideology is just the class of systems of idea. The problem is something much more specific than simply have a "system of ideas" -- and the worst thing is to refuse to systematize your ideas because then you're an "ideologue".
It's specifically "closed ideologies" -- so not early Marxism which was essentially an empirical attempt to describe economic relations (one which had both some empirical errors and some philosophical ones) -- but political Marxism which was a closed system of belief.
In the US today, you can see the non-ideology ideology of "pragmatism" as a closed system, where if you don't accept the premises of the non-ideology, you're not allowed in the conversation. Same totalizing nonsense as Stalinism and Catholicism. On the other hand, you can find highly ideological people both on the left and right with which you can actually hold a conversation and good-faith debate -- they've left their system open to refutation.
Posted by: Data Venia
|
January 5, 2011 10:45 AM
And in today's news...
I think I'm going to vomit.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/cVpyWEQF1tbVF3nfXSCpSyg3McHumj4-#1c5fe
|
January 5, 2011 11:40 AM
Sounds to me as though the governor's entire security detail needs to be arrested and stay that way. After all, I hear the assassin had enough time to empty two clips into the governor. (Possibly BS, though.)
Posted by: KG
|
January 5, 2011 12:35 PM
How disgraceful that no moderate Muslims have condemned the murder. Oh, wait...
Salman Taseer: Thousands mourn Pakistan governor.
I wonder how many of those whining about the "failure" of moderate Muslims to condemn it would be out there risking their lives along with those mourners.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
January 5, 2011 2:20 PM
Same shit, different decade. Only this time the victim is a man.
Feb. 2007, Pakistan: woman murdered for not wearing veil. Zilla Huma Usman, the Punjab provincial minister for social welfare and supporter of President Musharraf, was shot as she prepared to address a public gathering in the town of Gujranwala, 70km (43 miles) north of the provincial capital, Lahore. As party members threw rose petals at her, the gunman shot her in the head, police said. They identified the attacker as Malulvi Ghulam Sarwar and said that he was opposed to the participation of women in politics and the refusal of many professional women in Pakistan to wear the veil.
July 2009, Germany: Woman murdered for wearing veil. The 32-year-old pharmacist, dubbed the “veil martyr” by the Egyptian media, was stabbed to death Wednesday by a man who had been fined 780 euros for taunting her with racial slurs in August 2008. The assailant, known as “Axel W.,” appealed the fine, and while the pregnant El Sherbini was preparing her testimony, he stabbed her 18 times in front of her husband and 3-year-old son. The husband was severely injured after unsuccessfully trying to protect his wife.
-------
Indira Gandhi was also murdered by her bodyguard.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 5, 2011 3:24 PM
#s100-103
It's no surprise you don't care about Asia Bibi, why she's just a Christian blasphemer; a racist Shariaphobe! And that's how the twisted Lefty-Atheist-Muslim alliance works.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 5, 2011 3:29 PM
It's no surprise you don't care about Asia Bibi
do you never tire of erecting the flimsiest of strawmen?
I rather think you might be projecting the fact that the person we REALLY don't give a fuck about is...
YOU.
I'm actually more than slightly dis-chuffed that PZ hasn't gotten around to tossing your worthless ass yet.
Posted by: arkestrate
|
January 5, 2011 3:47 PM
@Al B. Quirky: as someone raised in the Muslim faith, an Asian Briton who has lived for 7 years in Pakistan (and currently working here for a couple of years), I would like to take this opportunity to echo the sentiments of others here: get stuffed. Haven't you got three billy goats to harass on a bridge somewhere?
Have you bothered to read Pakistan newspapers such as Dawn, Express Tribune, or the Daily Times? Have you bothered to read about Asma Jahangir's work, rather than regurgitating things that are amateurish even for Anjem Chaudhry and his Islam4UK goons? Gah.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 5, 2011 6:14 PM
@#111
Is there supposed to be some semblance of cohesion in your post? What has being raised in the Muslim faith and having lived for 7 years in Pakistan GTF to do with Asia Bibi being on death row for blasphemy FFS?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 5, 2011 6:21 PM
Is there supposed to be some semblance of cohesion in your post?
*headdesk*
one, I can only assume you meant to say "coherence".
two, he was of course responding to your continual slurs.
three, When the hell are you going to fuck the hell off, you fucking ignoramus?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 5, 2011 6:31 PM
Ichthyic, you have to forgive ABQ here.
Being such a hard working, busy, chemist, he would obviously be far more familiar with the word "cohesion" than the word "coherence" (unlike, say, a physicist).
Such a slip of the tongue is perfectly understandable.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 5, 2011 6:36 PM
Not until after he refills my prescription, I hope.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 5, 2011 6:39 PM
you have to forgive ABQ here.
I'd like to forgive him with the back of my hand.
when is someone actually going to invent that device that allows one to slap idiots physically, across the intartubes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxIiJEy0yWc
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 5, 2011 6:59 PM
If you should happen to find one, let me know. I want one too.
Of course not. In ABQ's world, if it is not a propaganda organ for the American Christian Right, it doesn't exist.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 5, 2011 8:47 PM
@113
Just as soon as a minimum of three (3) posters here, including the limey Muslim who can't stay away from the shariafied shiite-hole of his origins, express open support for Asia Bibi and call on BHO to do likewise.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2011 8:57 PM
You really are a moron ABQ.
Seriously. A fucking moron.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 5, 2011 9:00 PM
I mean really ABQ you do realize the post here is being critical those who killed of a Muslim who was standing up against a blasphemy law that was condemning a Christian.
How fucking stupid can you be?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 5, 2011 9:04 PM
Well, his bar keeps getting lower and lower. I think ABQ is back to marsupial intelligence, based on his failure to communicate...Posted by: arkestrate
|
January 6, 2011 12:01 AM
@Al B. Quirky:....Wow.
A) I'm an atheist. Read any of my other comments on this blog.
B) I was raised Sunni, actually, not Shia.
C)I like how you appear to assume that I've not been at protests in Pakistan against the BL, and against the treatment of Asia Bibi or Asia Noreen. Ones that that were taking place before you probably heard about them in the US press. Sorry for being an uninformed guess - just learning from your own example.
D) As to why I'm here? I'm here because of work with UNESCO and UNAIDS, and because I speak Punjabi and Urdu, as well as French. I was assigned here. You know, doing one's duty?
If you want to be rational and polite, up for a logical and informative discussion, that's one thing. But seriously? Fuck you.
Posted by: arkestrate
|
January 6, 2011 12:08 AM
For making, not being, an uninformed guess. I'm tired and cranky and at work. Your obstinate idiocy isn't helping.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 6, 2011 12:49 AM
@#122
So you're:
A)An apostate from Islam
B)in a Sunni majority nation which
C)applies certain laws according to the Sharia (Islamic Law).
This is what you tell us, but not what you tell the locals over there, because you know that apostasy is punishable by death (under Sharia). You know this, so why join in the (ignorant) abuse of my defence of Asia Bibi, and my call for BHO's support?
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 6, 2011 1:03 AM
Well, now that is really not fair to grey kangaroos of average intelligence.
Posted by: arkestrate
|
January 6, 2011 1:13 AM
People who know me, know I'm an atheist. It doesn't come up unless I'm asked directly, at which point I do tell people, provided I know I'm not going to be killed for it. I'm not macho enough to run into a mosque, head-butt the maulvi, and then go "I don't believe in your deiteeeeeeeee" in a Begbie manner, just yet. I've got a few more belt levels to go in my Taekwondo classes, to go...
As for my 'joining in'? In fairness, that has to more with your language more than anything. If I appear to your eyes to be an accomodationist - which I'm not, by the way - that's due to living here and growing up the way I did; I know that there are people who, Muslim and non-Muslim, who are doing their damnedest to change things for the better, whilst here in Pakistan. I know that not all Muslims here are supporting Ms Asia's death sentence, and that people want the blasphemy law repeal, or at least not resultant in an execution (it wouldn't be perfect, but at least a first step).
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
January 6, 2011 1:13 AM
@ ABQ
Oh please.
You don't give two shits from a turtles ass whether that woman lives or dies. You just are happy to have a christian corpse to rape to promote your bullshit.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
January 6, 2011 1:17 AM
@arkestrate
Save your breath. ABQ doesn't care about accommodation or anything like that. In fact the issue isn't even that he's against blasphemy laws. He's really just upset that it's Muslims oppressing Christians and not the other way around.
Posted by: arkestrate
|
January 6, 2011 1:24 AM
@IngL I know, I'm just bored at work, and my copy of Hl-2 for the mac's acting up> : /
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 6, 2011 2:59 AM
@arkestrate
If you want me to be 'rational and polite', instead of saying 'fuck you' (@122) and 'get stuffed' (@111) why don't you take a leaf out of pelamun's book (#95) and the same goes the other apes here. Treat me as a civilized HB, and I'll respond in like fashion.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 6, 2011 3:03 AM
f you want me to be 'rational and polite', instead of saying 'fuck you' (@122) and 'get stuffed
how about:
fuck off.
get bent.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 6, 2011 3:03 AM
We tried, when you first appeared here, lest you forget.
But from then until now you have not said a single thing worthy of that title.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
January 6, 2011 3:10 AM
ABQ, of course saying fuck you (#122) was completely out of order and nothing at all to do with calling someone a
in #118... Perhaps you could try treating people as HB's first, and you might not get quite as much instant hostility?Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 6, 2011 3:16 AM
in #118... Perhaps you could try treating people as HB's first, and you might not get quite as much instant hostility?
fuck that. he wore out any chance of a welcome months ago.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
January 6, 2011 3:23 AM
Icthyic
From me too - just trying to highlight the hypocrisy of his self-righteous whining. Need to dust off the old [sarcasm] tags I think...
Posted by: arkestrate
|
January 6, 2011 3:33 AM
@Usagichan (#133): Yeah, you can tell that I was pretty ticked off by that, so in the end I just gave up even trying at that point.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 6, 2011 4:17 AM
@arkestrate#136
notwithstanding the fact that your 1st words 2 me included 'get stuffed' .. well same 2 u, ya Muslim ..
Posted by: arkestrate
|
January 6, 2011 4:40 AM
@Al B. Quirky #137:
Atheist, actually. Read the comment again. And I refrained from text-speak.
Posted by: pelamun
|
January 6, 2011 9:12 AM
oops, let it be said that I didn't want to appear to be on ABQ's side, and should the impression have arisen I'm quite sorry (I mean before delurking, I was lurking here at least since 2004). Just put it down to my infrastructural situation, but next week I'll be back in Internet DSL Wonderland :)...
Anyways, to make myself clear, I'm right now at a place that also has a blasphemy law, albeit not with the death penalty. Every time a Protestant or Muslim (sometimes hapless, sometimes provocative) wonders into a Catholic church and does not eat the cracker properly, he (it's usually a man) is beaten by the parishioners, has to be arrested by the police for his own safety, and held for his trial. Meanwhile the enraged parishioners often keep on rampaging in town, often targeting Muslim traders who haven't been here for hundreds of years, and sometimes the army has to be called in. Then the poor sap (or provocateur, as I said it depends) is usually sentenced to four-six years, anything less, and the masses would revolt again.
You know, for me this is only gradually removed from the situation in Pakistan. And the religion involved here: surprise, not Islam, but Catholicism. Sometimes it's helpful to use a mirror...
Posted by: mikmik
|
January 6, 2011 12:26 PM
pelamun = "They came up to a point where her sole argument just consisted of "I just believe" with no further argument. At 4am everyone was mostly asleep anyways. Sorry for rambling off..."
An atheist friend married a devout woman. She is classy in every way with reams of common sense except when buddy asked her that if incontrovertable evedence proving that there is no God ever came to light, would she still believe? She said yes, it is a matter of faith.
It is a matter of denying reality, if you ask me.
Posted by: pelamun
|
January 6, 2011 1:43 PM
And yet I remember, in the summer before I went off to college, I was discussing all these theodicy problems with a professor of American history, who happened to be a devout Catholic as well (this was in a deeply secularised part of Europe). I guess I was young and naive then, and all these arguments I brought up were easily defeated by him. I don't exactly remember my arguments from back then, but they were along the lines of the baby drowning in the bathtub etc.This episode made me an agnostic for almost ten years. Unfortunately pharyngula didn't exist back then. But I credit PZ Myers for finally getting me off the fence. I also see now that my arguments were flawed because they were mainly relating to suffering etc, which could be countered easily by sophistry.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 6, 2011 3:10 PM
@139
You don't want to appear to be on the side that stands with Asia Bibi, a woman condemned to death for blasphemy? You don't want BHO to even put a call through to Islamisbad to try and save her? I guess the principle of Lefty tribalism reigns supreme here, which is why we have a collective hand-wringing over Taseer's murder, but if anyone dares suggest we lift a finger to save a .. a Christian, they're taken out and shot.
Posted by: Numad
|
January 6, 2011 3:42 PM
@142,
Your "side" overlaps with Asia Bibi's side only through the chance of talking points and because of the greater expedience it presents in the furthering of your own narcissistic posturing.
Your "side" is still what it was before you made a few formulaic blog comments superficially about Asia Bibi: a demand for the other readers to kiss your ass.
Anyone can tell that you don't give a shit.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
January 6, 2011 3:54 PM
Read the comment again.
no, you don't get it.
Al is too educated to bother to need to read anything.
he already knows everything!
...
yeah, don't bother.
I'm getting progressively more dis-chuffed PZ seems to be in non-ban mode lately.
must be the holidays.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 6, 2011 4:27 PM
Yawn, ABQ still hasn't shown a probable (>50% chance) scenario where he would end up under Sharia law in Oz. We all know true paranoia and bigotry when we see it. Bigots like ABQ fear for the sake of fearing, which feeds their paranoia, not because they have a probable and logical reason for their fears.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 6, 2011 9:49 PM
#s143-145
Once again, we see that what I'm saying, and what the pharynghoulish lefty low-life say I'm saying, are 2 different things. That's because the pharynghoulish lefty low-life are so fucked in the collective head, they think everyone else is like them.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 6, 2011 10:00 PM
Yeah, Al B. Fuckwad, we see you're saying shit, as you always do, and normal people are not saying shit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 6, 2011 10:07 PM
ABQ, no proof from you equals you being a idjit moron bigot. Welcome to the real world, not the fantasy world of
liberturds like yourself, where reality and your prejudices don't meet up.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 6, 2011 10:10 PM
Incidentally, Al B. Fuckwad, did you ever figure out why water is less dense than ice? You being such a great chemyst and all, you should be able to explain that without googling.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 6, 2011 10:16 PM
BTFW Nerd, we already live under partial Sharia Law - what else do you call it when my friends can't get bacon on their chicken-burgers at our local KFC - and get abused by a fuckin' abusive Muslim, just for asking?
Posted by: Numad
|
January 6, 2011 10:25 PM
Quirky, you insult people who actually live under under Sharia Law with this frivolous comparison.
And wasn't that even a specifically halal-friendly restaurant?
Stay classy.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 6, 2011 10:31 PM
yup, which makes it Sharia-compliant We don't want Sharia, we want Freedom - including the option of a slice of bacon on our chicken-burger.Posted by: Numad
|
January 6, 2011 10:52 PM
And I want to get served breakfast at Whammy Burger at 11:35, but it just isn't going to happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8HOaB1fOqA
Hey, think maybe there might be another restaurant in Sydney that's going to add those tiny slices of pork in a chicken sandwhich?
Such oppression.
Posted by: pelamun
|
January 6, 2011 10:53 PM
Sigh, ABQ, I've been lurking here long enough you know.
So tell me, do you support a prison sentence of four-six years for people who desecrate the host, like PZ Myers did?
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 7, 2011 4:33 AM
#149
.. thus spake 'Tis Himself.Behold the 'science' of your devotees, PZ. Here, let me hold it up closer:
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 7, 2011 4:50 AM
@Numad
Frankly my dear, I don't feel inclined to drive across town (to get a burger as advertised on TV) like a typical wimpy lefty PC/MC gutless liberal yank like you. Stuff Sharia and stuff the moose-limbs.
Posted by: Numad
|
January 7, 2011 5:52 AM
Quirky,
When you* enter establishments and demand to be served foodstuffs that the establishment doesn't stock, how long do you wait at the counter before leaving with an empty stomach (which must be very prodigious, as you are very ungutless?)
You certainly are very brave to inconvenience yourself in your heroic stand against inconvenience.
People who are merely oppressed and not inconvenienced in extremely minute ways by theocratic institutions and customs sure have it easy compared to you!
*Because as you speak of this news topic (unrelated in any meaningful way to the topic of the original post or the thread of conversation in which you propped it up) in such personal terms, setting yourself up as an example, this certainly has to be something which relates to your personal experience and is not at all a situation in whuch you project yourself to stroke your ego. Unless your posting here is in fact an extended parodic performance? Gosh, I sure would look silly were that the case.
Posted by: Numad
|
January 7, 2011 5:55 AM
@157,
Don't I mean "which" and not "whuch?" Yes, I believe I do.
Irrelevant correction: I am not a yank.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 7, 2011 6:10 AM
Actually, my stance is against Islam; Jihad & Sharia in particular. It is only your defective lefty wimpy baby-pea sized brain that allows you to believe otherwise, and also that Sharia in Punchbowl is somehow totally unrelated to Sharia in Pakistan. No. The degree of Sharia is proportional to the % Muslim population, but is Sharia nonetheless, something I'm totally and consistently opposed to; a fact your baby-pea sized brain seems to have a problem with, because you're a typical wimpy lefty PC/MC gutless liberal yank.
Posted by: Ragutis
|
January 7, 2011 6:55 AM
Al B. Quirky: Fuck the fucking fuck off already.
Seriously, the only thing you're accomplishing here is locking up the title of "Most tiresome troll". You make me think N.o.R. is too tolerant and forgiving. You make people pine for the intellectual stimulation of posts from DM and Elijahtruth. You have pushed "asshats" and "douchebags" up several rungs of the social ladder in order to make room for your own very special brand of repugnance and idiocy down there at the very bottom.
FUCK. OFF.
Posted by: drbunsen
|
January 7, 2011 8:17 AM
Don't look now Al, but there are kosher delis aaaaaall over town.
Posted by: Franklin Percival
|
January 7, 2011 8:31 AM
Al B. Quirky #156
You're wrong again. I'm Franklin, my dear, and I don't give a damn about you, unless and until you stop your foolishness.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
January 7, 2011 9:27 AM
ABQ:
I'd like to point out this actual example of a Godwin, rather than the pathetic "Godwin" calling that is usual on the intertoobz. This is the classic Godwin -- equating the most trivial of inconveniences with totalitarian oppression. And it's funny! That's requirement #1 of a Godwin -- it has to be a rip-roaring funny mis-analogy.
So, can ABQ just be banned now? I doubt he'll ever be funnier than this... this really is the high point of his posting career.
Maybe PZ can put up ABQ's statement here as an example of idiocy? It's better than any "I get email" I've seen.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
January 7, 2011 9:47 AM
Aww! Look everybody, Al B. Jerkwad is claiming to be an Xtian martyr because he can't get Bacon on his frigging sandwich. Xtians are so cute when they play the martyr, aren't they. Who's a cute little martyr?
Uh, Al, might I point out that
1)You could complain to restaurant management
2)You could complain to franchise management
3)You could complain to the franchiser
4)You could take your business elsewhere
5)You could try the sandwich without the bacon
Uh, dude, none of these things would significantly inconvenience you and none of your complaints have anything to do with Sharia. What a dipshit!
Posted by: KG
|
January 7, 2011 9:47 AM
Help! I'm being oppressed! I went into a vegetarian restaurant and asked for a large steak, medium rare, and they refused to serve me one!!!1!eleven!! Then I went into a steak house and asked them to replace the filling in my molar they refused to serve me as well!!!!! Then I went to my dentist, and asked for a semi-detached house in a good area, and they refused to serve me too!!!! They even called me stupid for asking!!!!!!! When will this PC tyranny end?
Posted by: Scorpy1
|
January 7, 2011 9:56 AM
#155 provides a perfect analogy to Al Bundy's shtick:
1) pretend that two different things, when they share something in common, are the same (in this case, the colloquial terms for the liquid and solid states of Dihydrogen Monoxide)
2) chuckle to himself as if he found something interesting/scandalous.
3) ask for everyone's attention on the matter, revealing how stupid he really is.
If only he left off at #2, he could enjoy the smell of his own farts in peace.
As it is: plonk (thank you TamperMonkey for Chrome).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 7, 2011 10:06 AM
Yawn, what a tedious inconsistent blowhard ABQ is. Liberturds are all for free markets. Having a halal/kosher KFC is the free market in action. No customers, out of business. Lots of customers, stays in business. Usually places that are halal/kosher have signs up making sure everybody is aware of the fact as they consider it a bonus for their customers. If you don't like it, complain to KFC corporate, not us.
And for a liberturd to confuse the free market doing its thing as being legally imposed sharia law upon him...what a rottingturdhead, IQ in single digits level of stupidity.
Let's see, still sounds like a paranoid bigot, looks like a paranoid bigot, and smells like a five day old piece of shit. Still the paranoid bigot.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
January 7, 2011 10:14 AM
ABQ never fails to show us just how fucking stupid it is.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
January 7, 2011 10:27 AM
Nerd of Redhead:
I dunno, Nerd. I kind of want to outlaw bacon just to piss off ABQ. If it weren't cutting off my nose to spite my face, I'd do it. It'd be a laugh. I'd eat bacon myself, just like I still smoke pot even though it's against the law.
Let's see, what's more like imposing a fucking oppressive religious code as law: not being able to get bacon at a specific KFC, or outlawing same-sex marriages?
Hmm. That's a stumper.
Posted by: pelamun
|
January 7, 2011 10:44 AM
So ABQ, no answer to my question?
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 7, 2011 3:13 PM
Bullshit. The reason there is a demand for bacon-free burgers is because bacon is haram - ie, against Sharia law. The same reason there's a demand for interest free banking/Sharia finance, religious apartheid in swimming pools, separate prayer-rooms for Muslims in universities, foot-wash basins in airports, non-publication of Motoons in newspapers, Sharia courts in UK so that Muslim males can continue to treat Muslim women as their goods & chattels. Where will it all end? Full-blown Sharia - look at Iran, Sudan & Saudi Arabia.
I was born in a country with zero sharia; what we are witnessing before our very eyeballs is increasing Sharia, sometimes by stealth, in the Western world, and (less subtly) in the so-called Islamic world: Iran became Shariafied in 1979, Pakistan in 1985, Somalia just the other day. All the while lefties wring their hands over Sharia-sanctioned atrocities such as stoning women to death, amputation of heads hands & feet, hanging homosexuals (Iran) while the lefty govts they vote for continue to allow Muslim immigration, and aquiesce to their every sharia-based demand, and turn a blind eye to the flouting of our laws (eg., polygamy). Where will you draw the line against increasing Shariafication? If you not prepared to fight for your freedom, you deserve what's coming your way.
pelamun: sorry, where did PZ say that?
Posted by: Numad
|
January 7, 2011 4:29 PM
Quirky @159
But what's your stance besides being consistent? And when I say consistent I mean thoughtless and simplistic?
Yes, I've gathered that "Quirky hate Islam!" But I have to ask again what do you do about this RESTAURANT OF POTENTIAL OPPRESSION?
Do you just stand there and expect them to bring in pork for you? If so? How long before you leave without having eaten anything? Do you write angry letters? Are you campaigning to get a law passed that makes the presence of pork mandatory under health regulations? Are you just blowing hot air?
I mean, this is important!
Because this manifestation of Sharia takes the form of something that falls under the heading of this "Freedom" you speak of, one way or another. And if you're actually trying to force people to stock, prepare and market pork products, well you're kind of pissing in the soup bowl of rights and liberties.
My concern being about oppression and violence as real things, you'll understand that this makes a bit of difference to me.
Also: I am still not a yank.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
January 7, 2011 4:36 PM
Al B. Quirky:
So? There's also a demand for bacon-free burgers because some folks like to live kosher. Other folks just don't like pork.
The fact that a restaurant exercises their freedom to not serve pork to accomodate these particular culinary predilections should be cause for celebration, as it's all about freedom. Not just your freedom -- but theirs.
I'm not entirely sure where you live -- are you from the UK? Canada? The US? I'm curious, because I'd like to know where you stand on the rights of folks to blaspheme the Flesh of Christ Made Manifest In A Gummy Cracker, marry someone of the same sex, or have an abortion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 7, 2011 4:45 PM
NigeltB,CM, OM, the Quirksturd physically resides in Australia.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 7, 2011 6:35 PM
#167
Good point, Nerd. It's all supply and demand; increase the Muslim population and you get increased Sharia - reduce the Muslim population to 0, and viola! .. zero sharia.
Posted by: Dania
|
January 7, 2011 7:40 PM
So, because a certain restaurant doesn't serve bacon, that means you don't have the freedom of eating your chicken-burger with a slice of bacon anymore? Really?
Well, frog, Inc. @163 is right.
Huh?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
January 7, 2011 7:46 PM
Dania, 'viola' is the way a seemingly huge amount of people spell voila. I've also seen it spelled 'wah lah!' a depressing amount of times.
Posted by: Dania
|
January 7, 2011 8:10 PM
Caine,
Yeah, that was what I suspected. Pretty sure ABQ didn't mean to say anything about either a flower or a musical instrument...
Like "raisin date"... but not nearly as funny.
*groan*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 8, 2011 9:16 AM
Dang, ABQ is such a dumb idjit, he just announced to the world he is five steps below a 500' pile of pig shit. I can just see ABQ in his underground bunker (his mother's basement), with his sheet and hood on the coat rack, confederate battle flag (or Australian equivalent) on the wall, along with pictures of burning crosses. Talk about mindless fear. That is all such bigots have, fear and paranoia about losing their imagined privileges. The only way they can feel good about themselves is to demonize another group. Showing themselves in the process to be true losers. Definitely not rational, and in dire need of professional mental health professionals.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
January 8, 2011 2:44 PM
nah, here's ABQ, telling Islam where to go.
Posted by: pelamun
|
January 9, 2011 8:00 AM
OK, I give up
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 9, 2011 8:22 AM
Pelamun, don't expect an answer from the Quirkturd. That requires actual thinking. He is unfamiliar with that technique.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 9, 2011 8:48 AM
Is Al B. Fucktard still whining about not getting bacon on his burger because his local KFC doesn't offer bacon? What a deprived life he lives.
Posted by: KG
|
January 9, 2011 9:09 AM
reduce the Muslim population to 0, and viola!.. zero sharia. - al b'Quirky
That's quite something: advocacy of ethnic cleansing (I'm being kind here, it could well be that he has genocide in mind), and conclusive proof of pertentiousness, ignorance and idiocy in half a sentence.