Muslim countries' blasphemy laws empower extremists

[cbayer]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20120927_Worldview__Muslim_countries__blasphemy_laws_empower_extremists.html


Trudy Rubin, Inquirer Opinion Columnist
Posted: Thu, Sep. 27, 2012, 3:01 AM

It's about time. After a week of anti-American violence in the Muslim world over a video that offends Islam, President Obama finally made a rousing defense of free speech, even if it insults religion.

Following the outburst of outrage in Libya and Egypt, American officials repeatedly deplored the video. There should have been more U.S. outrage over a campaign of violence orchestrated by Islamists and abetted by some Muslim leaders.

In his annual address to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Obama went a good ways toward setting the record straight.

"We do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs," Obama said. "Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views - even views we disagree with.

more at link

[cleanhippie]

1. And our own liberal believers tolerance empowers our own extremists.

Until religion becomes personal and is not treated any differently than any other unsubstantiated belief, religious extremists will always be empowered.

[rug]

2. Religion by its nature is a corporate activity.

People of particular faiths congregate. So, in that sense, it's sill to say it must become personal.

It certainly can be treated like any other position. The starting point is analyzing your phrase, "unsubstantiated belief", which is an oxymoron. If you do want to honestly challenge it, start with the notion of belief without loading the question.

[cleanhippie]

3. By personal, I mean out of the government and public square.

And by public square, I mean holding up ones religious tendencies as a model for the rest of the public to follow.

[rug]

4. That would mean outlawing any public religious demonstration.

As well as outlawing middle schoolers from holding up religious signs in bleachers.

There is a vast difference between government endorsement and sponsorship of religion and citizens publicly stating their religious views.

[cleanhippie]

5. Who said anything about outlawing?

Personal, to me at least, means not holding up signs in public, not opening secular meetings and events with prayer, not making ones religiousness a public affair at all, because one doesn't need to, because its personal. Feeling me now?

[rug]

6. Government actions aside, you said:

"by public square, I mean holding up ones religious tendencies as a model for the rest of the public to follow".

How do you propose to stop that without outlawing it?

If it's not illegal, what are you complaining about?

[cleanhippie]

7. By people keeping it personal, and not publicizing their religion.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[rug]

9. What's wrong with making your religious, or nonreligious, beliefs public?

Not hiding is a pretty obvious choice.

[cleanhippie]

13. Take a look around, what were talking about, the problems it is actually causing, thats whats wrong.

Do you seriously not understand my point?

[rug]

14. Other people's religious beliefs are causing you problems?

Other people's political beliefs are causing mine.

[cleanhippie]

17. Oh bother.

Either I am just not being clear or you are being obtuse. Either way, I think were at an impasse, as we do not seem to be reading from the same page.

[rug]

20. No, I think we just have to recognize the same distinction.

We agree that government should not promote religion.

The distinction is between that and public displays of religion, by private persons or groups, without government endorsement.

I consider that protected free speech whether I like it or not.

That's what I'm saying at least. I tried to keep that nonobtuse.

[cleanhippie]

21. I made no mention nor did I imply that I want anything banned or regulated.

Religion is personal. I feel that if people could keep their religion personal in their actions, the world might not have so many problems related to religion.

How will this be done? People will have to come to this conclusion voluntarily. It is already starting to happen, slowly, too slow for me, but maybe my daughter will live to see the day when people really start to shed the mythology of the past, and embrace the future with their hands untied. I can only imagine the possibilities for humanity when that happens. What do you think the world could be like without the religious strife?

[Oregonian]

8. Cleanhippie said "until religion becomes personal"

He said nothing about creating laws to compel people to put their religion on a shelf. It was a wish for society to naturally evolve to rationality. I, too, would like to see a society voluntarily give up bronze-age beliefs.

[rug]

10. He can speak quite clearly for himself.

And once again, you betray your bias. There is noting irrational about most religions. You confuse reason with scientifically demonstrable evidence.

It is a huge intellecual blunder to make somber dclarations which have thin support.

[rug]

12. "They're one and the same."

Sigh.

[cleanhippie]

16. Perhaps goes hand-in-hand is a better description?

[cleanhippie]

15. Rug, by its very nature, religion, belief in a deity, is irrational.

To believe in one's deity, without any demonstrable evidence, and contrary to the very laws of nature, is THE definition of irrational, no?

[rug]

18. No it isn't. It's undemonstrable.

Yet it's quite rational depending on the premise.

For example, in response to the question of beginnings, there are at least three hypotheses.

1) There is no beginning.

2) It is a cycle.

3) Since all known natural things have beginnings, the beginning must be supernatural, i.e., "deity".

None of these are demonstrable.

However, choosing #1 as a datum and applying reason, you reach various conclusions.

Same with 2).

If you posit #3 as a datum and reason from that datum, you may well rationally concude there is a deity and draw inferences therefrom.

Of course, if your original datum is that nothing exists that is not demonstrable, you won't. But that conclusion is the prisoner of the original, undemonstrable, premise.

[cleanhippie]

19. I'm just gonna respectfully disagree.