Discussion is welcome on this website. I’ve moved some discussion-based comments here to separate them from the specific themes of other posts. Please feel free to continue any discussions here that don’t seem to fit in anywhere else.
May 16, 2009
153 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
The proposed blasphemy bill is important in that it will effectively cut off the last avenue of hate open to racists, hatemongers and dissenters. At one time it was deemed acceptable to denigrate black people, women, homosexuals, those with disabilities etc – the harm caused to these people is no longer acceptable, we know need to protect a very vulnerable group – those of religious persuasion. Free speech is not a license to offend, it is time to revitalize the lost culture of civility and politeness and as we have shown an inability to do this willingly (we had to create laws to protect the other groups)then the blasphemy law is not only good but necessary.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Just in case you’re thinking that “Mujaahid” is a wind-up, he’s not — he’s this fellow, Liam Egan, an Irish convert to Islam:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/09/20089915285235465.html
MPAC has nothing to do with the Irish Muslim mainstream – indeed, they have an article on their site referring to Irish imams as “scoundrels” because they haven’t come out to support Ahern’s blasphemous libel bill (http://www.mpac.ie/content/view/244/1/). MPAC seems to consist of Liam, his wife, and a character from the UK who posts on politics.ie a lot.
Liam has no non-Muslim friends (presumably he dumped any friends he had prior to conversion) and compares Muslims having friends with non-Muslims to be akin to having friendships with “junkies, prostitutes or drunkards” (http://www.politics.ie/labour/38019-does-ruairi-quinn-know-racism-8.html#post1297114). He will also only meet his family “on his terms” (http://www.politics.ie/labour/38019-does-ruairi-quinn-know-racism-6.html#post1296965).
Truthfully, I actually feel quite sorry for him.
P.
Comment by Paul Moloney — May 11, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Martin: G-d needs no protection from you or anyone else, and if you’d actually sat down and read what blasphemy actually is you wouldn’t have made that comment.
Thank you for the commentary Ocean.
Claw: I have no doubt that there are challenges in the implementation of the law, but such difficulties have never negated the implementation of a law, more especially when the greater good is considered. I fear a future that has abandoned civility and replaced it with gross insult and offense. In the interests of social cohesion this law is an imperative.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
This is absurd ! Blasphemy is not a hate crime any more than political satire is. The big problem is if you create a secular law to protect the criticism of religious expression, then you better be careful not to offend one’s particular “beliefs” and sensibilities, however extreme. A fundamentalist Christian could rightly claim that making a joke about the scientific absurdity of “young earth creationism” is, in fact, blasphemy. A devout Muslim might claim that to deride the practice of harsh Sharia Law is blasphemous, too! Every wacky church group or cult will be more than happy to claim that a “free-thinking Irishman” has just committed a “hate crime”. Every religious or spiritual group could (and would) demand equal protection from those who might speak harsh words against their “guru”, pastor, spiritual leader or priest’s odd theological bent.
Ireland had a violent and troubled history during the “dark ages” – times of extreme religious fervor. It would be a shame if their government legislated a return to the paranoid past!
Comment by Steve M. — May 11, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
And tell us Erin, how does the right to insult benefit anyone? What benefit was there in producing the vile cartoons that resulted in the equally vile actions of a mob? Samuel Johnson famously said: “Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test”.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Steve M: slippery slope arguments aside, your real objection appears to be that this law somehow panders to religious people. Some people think that race laws do the same for black people and that anti-discrimination laws pander to minorities. Sensible people see and understand that our move away from the politeness principle and a base desire to embrace insult and offense as legitimate forms of attack necessitate laws and respective punishments. MPACIE fully endorses Minister Ahern’s proposal.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
“And tell us Erin, how does the right to insult benefit anyone?”
Hi Liam,
You mean, such as when you have compared non-Muslims to junkies and prostitutes?
P.
Comment by Paul Moloney — May 11, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
I’m sure objective readers will see your ‘editorial license’ in all it’s glory Paul. I encourage them to visit the links you’ve provided.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
“I encourage them to visit the links you’ve provided.”
Oh, I encourage them to read the pure Liam in his full unhinged glory.
It should be pointed out that Liam’s wife shared his politics.ie account. When this was discovered, the fact that Liam occasionally talked in a vaguely humane manner suddenly made sense.
P.
Comment by Paul Moloney — May 11, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Liam/Mujahid,
This is where you’ve been hiding. While we’re on the subject of offense refresh my memory and tell me again what you said when asked why you would never be friends with Christians etc.? Something about prostitutes etc?
Comment by Garlandgreen — May 11, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
Dear Mujaahid,
No my argument was not about “pandering” to religion. It was about legal definitions and the inherent “problem” with creating laws which inhibit free expression of political ideas, economic concepts, philosophy and those cherished mythologies.
Slippery slopes are often dangerous, but more importantly – “beliefs” are not human beings. I have no right to discriminate against women, people of another race or homosexuals – but I have a right to challenge, reject or ridicule the “beliefs” that they (or even a white Irish/Muslim convert) might have – especially when some attempt to incorporate those beliefs into public policy, such as teaching creationism in public schools. GMA is only partially correct that blasphemy is a victimless crime…
Gods if they exist, can certainly defend themselves – by removing those who commit blasphemy with a single lightning bolt. However, without the legal ability to challenge and ridicule every silly notion advanced by mullahs, pastors, cult leaders, spiritualists and faith healers, modern society can easily become a victim.
Comment by Steve M. — May 11, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Mr Dawkins – abortion, illegal gun sales and even the Jewish genocide were and are all deemed ‘victimless crimes’ by certain individuals. Your praise of this term and its foul associations speaks volumes.
Micheal you wrote: “Religions do not need protection. People do. Religions do not have rights. People do.” and I agree, people who hold religious convictions require protection from the harms that others would force upon them.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
@ #101: Your pathetic straw-man speaks volumes. None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with blasphemy.
“people who hold religious convictions require protection from the harms that others would force upon them.” I think that you will find that the chief cause of harm to people with religious convictions is OTHER PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.
Comment by Brian — May 12, 2009 @ 12:17 am
Liam,
I find people that take bigotry and oppression and wrap it up in calm sounding polite words of (warped) “reason” and (in)tolerance deeply fucking offensive. I find your very politeness and call for decorum FUCKING offensive.
You blaspheme against my belief in the expressive power of the whole English language. Calling for the suppression of free speech and scientific honesty and endevour is a blasphemy against Humanity’s Enlightenment.
You deserve ridicule though, not legal persecution. Do you have to wear a funny hat?
Comment by PeterM — May 12, 2009 @ 1:32 am
Mujaahid asked:
And tell us Erin, how does the right to insult benefit anyone? What benefit was there in producing the vile cartoons that resulted in the equally vile actions of a mob? Samuel Johnson famously said: “Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test”.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
The answer to that is simple. In the first instance, noone has the right NOT to be offended. If that were the case, society would come to an immediate halt, due the the infinity of opportunities to take offence.
In the second instance, one person’s offensive item is potentially another person’s way of life. Are you suggesting that one group’s way of life should trump another’s simply because the former may be offended by the behaviour of the latter? If so, there are plenty of non-democratic totalitarian states for you to choose from, because you are not a democrat.
Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental elements of democratic society. When we curtail freedom of speech, we remove a critical protection from the people (who are then no longer sovereign), and expose them to the fullest extent of oppressive state power.
Blasphemy laws are a charter for sectarianism, and contrary to what you’ve suggested, are almost guaranteed to atomise society. Such laws do nothing at all to bring society together.
The reality of the “cartoon riots” was that muslims around the world were manipulated and whipped into an artificial rage over something that they have no right to demand action. In a free society, I am free to declare that Mohammed was a paedophile (which he was), and that Islam, and all other religions are an anachronistic nonsense. I can paint a picture of Mohammed the paedophile if I so wish. That YOU have taken upon yourself a rule that YOU can’t represent the paedophile graphically does not give you the right to insist that I also take upon myself such an idiotic restriction.
That Muslims were exhorted to riot, violence, destruction, and murder over something that happened in a free society in Northern Europe, far away from them, and in a publication that they’d never even have seen is the height of insanity.
You on the other hand argue that we should curtail our democratic and human right to free speech just in case some lunatics might take offence and commit ACTUAL crimes? This is bullshit. It is like suggesting I shouldn’t go outside in case some psychopath takes offence to the way the sun reflects from my sunglasses, and attempts to kill me.
Nonsense. A core principle of democratic citizenship is being able to completely disagree with what someone says or does, but still defend their right to say it. In this way, we all defend each other’s liberty. Your approach is a fast track to a society of totalitarian nightmares.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 12, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Mujaahid declared:
Steve M: slippery slope arguments aside, your real objection appears to be that this law somehow panders to religious people. Some people think that race laws do the same for black people and that anti-discrimination laws pander to minorities. Sensible people see and understand that our move away from the politeness principle and a base desire to embrace insult and offense as legitimate forms of attack necessitate laws and respective punishments. MPACIE fully endorses Minister Ahern’s proposal.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
You can’t sidestep the fact that such a law is repressive. Neither can you simply set aside the fact that such a law is a charter for a slide into totalitarianism.
Furthermore, you can’t seriously pretend that religious people are an oppressed minority as for example homosexuals are. This simply flies in the face of the fact that religion is spoiled and cossetted in this society, and for now, the majority still declare themselves believers, (although whether they are or not is debatable).
Perhaps you might try another argument to try to hammer your religious round peg into the square hole of democracy.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 12, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Mujaahid spouted:
Mr Dawkins – abortion, illegal gun sales and even the Jewish genocide were and are all deemed ‘victimless crimes’ by certain individuals. Your praise of this term and its foul associations speaks volumes.
Micheal you wrote: “Religions do not need protection. People do. Religions do not have rights. People do.” and I agree, people who hold religious convictions require protection from the harms that others would force upon them.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
And what about protected my rights as an atheist against your intent to squash them?
Will you willingly accept a law that prevents you from saying ANYTHING at all to ANYONE about your religion? You’ll have to shut down your website and stop taking part in these debates you know, because almost everything you’ve said is offensive to me on religious grounds. You, therefore, would be in breach of this proposed law, and I would quit happily sue you on those grounds. Don’t you see that this kind of law works AGAINST your religious belief, and not for it?
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 12, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Telboy – what gives you the right to brandish your irreligious ideology in the public sphere, while I and co-religionists must keep it private?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 13, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Vern said: “A more sensible argument is to say it would be a totalitarian act to suppress anyone’s right to freely express a thought…” Would you support the teaching of Creationism in schools Vern, or is it one rule for religious adherents and another for you? Seems to me, that you pick and choose.
Mr Nugent: If these are the best 100 arguments you can offer then I fear you are entering the fray half-cocked. I’m surprised the erudite Mr Dawkin’s hasn’t been more helpful – a flash in the pan methinks.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 13, 2009 @ 9:53 am
@Mujaahid
Certainly creationism can be discussed in a historical context in schools, but as for teaching matters of faith as fact I’m dead against the idea. Schools are supposed to be places for learning the basic general knowledge you need before picking a career path. Mixing fact with mythology in an institution of learning can only be confusing for young minds.
Comment by Vern — May 13, 2009 @ 11:52 am
LOL!!!! Just seen Mujaahid’s first post (#24) Ooooh, this thread looks like it could be fun!
Right Mujaahid. I’d like you to consider the following:
In your (*cough…cough*) “argument” you state that: “At one time it was deemed acceptable to denigrate black people, women, homosexuals, those with disabilities etc – the harm caused to these people is no longer acceptable.”
There are two problems with you statement:
1.) Such harm was never “acceptable”…morally at least, it just took the law a while to catch up to civilised thinking.
2.) And more crucially; the groups of people you list have one fundamental thing in common that you “religionists” lack: black people, women, homosexuals and those with disabilities did not choose to be black, female, gay or disabled; THEY WERE BORN THAT WAY! They were not able to stop being black, female, gay or disabled just to fit into a cruel and judgemental society, but neither should they have been expected to! They therefore were deserving of a law protecting them from abuse for something they could not help.
However…Religionists were NOT born: christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist, sikh etc. They might have been RAISED as such (foolishly and unfortunately by their short-sighted parents) but this IS something they can help. For example, they could travel the world, read some books, get an education, THINK for themselves, critically analyse statements of faith and wild claims of magical stories written by deluded warmongers (like mohamed) and come to the conclusion that religion is a bit of a joke really and with so many religions in the world all claiming to be “right” or “the one true path” etc. etc. that this in itself should be a logical fallacy worthy of a resultant atheism.
By the way, as a “muslim” are you actually advocating e.g. gay rights? I only ask because you alluded to it in you “argument.” Is not being gay punishable by death in “islam?”
I’m REALLY looking forward to your response…
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 13, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Mujaahid whinged:
Telboy – what gives you the right to brandish your irreligious ideology in the public sphere, while I and co-religionists must keep it private?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 13, 2009 @ 9:48 am
Mujaahid,
That is hysterical nonsense. Noone here is parading an irreligious ideology. Well, I might be parading a humanistic ideology. Using the word “irreligious” implies a presupposition that “religious” is the default position, which it isn’t. No child is borne with an inherent knowledge of Islam, Christianity, or any other doctrine of nonsense.
Contrary to what you suggest, people here are arguing for your right to declare your beliefs publicly. If this blasphemy law passes you and all other religious people will be forbidden from doing so on pain of fine and imprisonment. This is because it isn’t possible to declare one religious belief without offending people of another religious belief.
You are a turkey voting for christmas if you think this proposition is a good idea.
(I’ve already explained this to you on this very thread, and you haven’t yet got it).
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 14, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Mujaahid blustered:
Vern said: “A more sensible argument is to say it would be a totalitarian act to suppress anyone’s right to freely express a thought…” Would you support the teaching of Creationism in schools Vern, or is it one rule for religious adherents and another for you? Seems to me, that you pick and choose.
Mr Nugent: If these are the best 100 arguments you can offer then I fear you are entering the fray half-cocked. I’m surprised the erudite Mr Dawkin’s hasn’t been more helpful – a flash in the pan methinks.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 13, 2009 @ 9:53 am
Mujaahid,
I would have no problem with creationism being taught in a religion class, or perhaps at fairy story time. I do have a problem with it being taught in a science class, because there is absolutely no scientific evidence behind creationism whatsoever.
Would you have a problem with physics being taught in a mosque during prayers?
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 14, 2009 @ 11:53 am
Cormac: This ‘Science Delusion’ that you are under precludes any understanding of the Divine, I feel sorry for you. But you go on believing that you’re sum total of some cosmic accident, perhaps YOU are
Comment by Mujaahid — May 14, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Hey Mujaahid, no fair! You replied to Cormac but not me! What gives?…got anything to say at all?
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 14, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Matt: Hope I didn’t keep you waiting. Firstly, you claim that the denigration of black people was never (morally) acceptable? This of course is rubbish. At one time it wasn’t only deemed acceptable but necessary. Cotton field owners used this tactic to harness the strength but break the will to fight.
Do you think a Muslim, Christian or Jewish child chooses to be born into its particular religious society? Odd??? But you would expect Muslims, Christians and Jews to stop being who they are simply to fit into your cruel and judgemental society and it is for this and many other reasons that they deserve protection from your sort.
I would no more advocate the right to a paedophile than a homosexual. But as you’re the one who’s convinced the latter is somehow genetic, prove that the former isn’t!
Comment by Mujaahid — May 14, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Yay! thanks for replying Mujaahid.
Ok…Firstly (and I don’t want to dwell on this for too long as it’s not the main thrust of my argument) it has NEVER been morally acceptable to denigrate against anyone for the colour of their skin. Your response actually doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but as I said I don’t want to dwell so onto the meaty part…
I answer your question with a question: Do you think there is such a thing as a “muslim child” or a “christian child?” What about a “Tory child,” a Labour child”…a “British National Party child?” You see these are political ideologies to which people gravitate once they are of voting age i.e. when they know a little more about the world, are able to choose and gain the legal and personal responsibility to do so.
As a society, we do not co-op children into political parties and for good reasons: They don’t know anything about them; they are simply too young to understand.
Why then do you religionists insist on co-op children into your ideologies? This is odd behaviour.
In summary, the notion of a “muslim child” or a “christian child” is moot since there is no such thing. They may be raised that way, which is unfortunate for them, but it certainly is not genetic like skin colour.
Furthermore, you’re talking across purposes and clumsily avoiding my original question with your last sentence. This is disappointing, I’d hoped for a higher calibre interlocutor, but one must play the cards one is dealt…
I asked you if you are advocating gay rights, because you used gay rights that have become enshrined in law (along with other examples) as a premise to argue your own case for a law against so-called “blasphemers.” It just seems odd that a “muslim” would do such a thing since your “holy” books spout nothing but hate and condemnation for gays. This attitude is contrary to the laws we now have and so it is odd (to me at least) that you should use such an antithetical exemplar in attempting to advance your “argument.”
If you want to get into the genetics of sexuality and the paraphilias in psychiatric classification, we certainly can, but first I’d prefer you to address the question I originally raised which is this: By raising the issue of gay rights to support your own call for legal protection from so-called “blasphemers” do you therefore recognise gays rights against hatred as now enshrined law or do you in fact hate them as a “muslim?”
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 14, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
The idea that the creator of the universe left a book is obsurd but if I did believe it, I must also believe that in this book, the creator of the universe forgot to tell me who the first female offspring of Eve was. Think about that for a minute.
Comment by ray — May 14, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Matt: From a Scriptural (Judeo/Christian/Islamic) standpoint, which is the only basis for a moral argument, then yes – it has never been morally acceptable. However, you are not arguing from that standpoint and cannot therefore speak of morality. So in terms of acceptability, then yes there was a time when it was considered acceptable to denigrate based on the colour of one’s skin.
All children are born Muslim Matt; they are born upon what Islam would deem the fitrah. It is their parents, society etc that change them into Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. Dawkins would argue that we are in fact predisposed toward religion, go back to the idea of fitrah and there you have your answer.
When you choose not to teach your child about religion, have you not therefore co-opted them into an ideology? Do you not consider that rather odd?
I don’t believe I used ‘homosexual rights’ to advance anything, nor would I. I did speak of it being acceptable to denigrate them in the past, and that it was no longer the case. Methinks you protest too much.
With regard to the genetics of sexuality, the floor is yours.
Excuse my lack for erudition.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 14, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Sorry Muj. Your Islamo-narcism fails you again. Your first four sentences which set the premise for your argument assume that your theocratic assumptions are a given. Which ain”t
the case.
As for ideology do you know the difference between “What to think” and “How to think”?
Comment by Garlandgreen — May 15, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Aaaaahh, the tired old “religion=morality” argument *rolleyes*
3 words: 1.)Old 2.)Testament & 3.)MohaMAD.
Hint: One is a collection of genocidal and depraved deistic solipsism, the other is a blood-thirsty, war-mongering paedophile.
All the rest is eclipsed by these simple examples of horror from “holy” books.
Mujaahid opined “All children are born Muslim”…Matt: ROTFLHAO!
Where is this “muslim gene?” LOL! I’d love to see a clinical geneticist isolate this one. Read a book dude…seriously you’re embarrassing yourself.
I’m not sure why, but then Mujaahid then asked: “When you choose not to teach your child about religion, have you not therefore co-opted them into an ideology?”
Matt: Who said anything about NOT teaching children about religion?…Not me: I’m all for it! I think ALL children should be taught about ALL religions equally; only then will they see just how barmy all you religionists are with your zombies rising form the dead, your flying horses and talking snakes. Any sane and moderately intelligent child would be able to see its all guff once they start also learning about the real world.
Mujaahid: “With regard to the genetics of sexuality, the floor is yours.”
Matt: And I’d wipe it with you gladly, only we don’t get to play that game until you learn to play by the rules: You STILL have not answered my previous question:
First I’ll quote back to you what you wrote from post #24:
Mujaahid said: “At one time it was deemed acceptable to denigrate black people, women, homosexuals, those with disabilities etc – the harm caused to these people is no longer acceptable.”
Now, I’ll ask a simpler version of the same question I will have asked THREE times now (posts #163, #170 and now this one):
As a “muslim” do you believe that the harm caused to gays by denigration (e.g. by religiously mandated hatred and murder) is now no longer acceptable?
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 15, 2009 @ 1:40 am
Hey folks,
Why are you even responding to Mujaahid?
I think it’s only fair that I never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Comment by Jack Butler — May 15, 2009 @ 2:08 am
The rules Matt are civility and respect, neither of which you have evinced.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 15, 2009 @ 11:28 am
I shouldn’t have to spell out that I don’t think the Catholic church is uniquely bad as religions go. Countries that are run as theocracies, of any religion, almost invariably have very poor records on human rights. Does “Mujaahid” expect us to accept with a straight face his comments about it being at one time acceptable to denigrate homosexuals and women? I wonder, hmmmmm, could there any kind of connection between ill-treatment of homosexuals and women, and relgious groups monopolising political power?
Let us thank those who criticised and mocked religion in the past, for making Ireland more free and equal. Some other countries sorely need critisers and mockers of religion.
Comment by Brian Garvey — May 15, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
#163 – Matt O’Brien.
[quote]However…Religionists were NOT born: christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist, sikh etc. They might have been RAISED as such (foolishly and unfortunately by their short-sighted parents) but this IS something they can help. For example, they could travel the world, read some books, get an education, THINK for themselves, critically analyse statements of faith and wild claims of magical stories written by deluded warmongers (like mohamed) and come to the conclusion that religion is a bit of a joke really and with so many religions in the world all claiming to be “right” or “the one true path” etc. etc. that this in itself should be a logical fallacy worthy of a resultant atheism.[/quote]
Christianity is a part of who I am. I have chosen to believe in God. I also oppose restricting free speech. I however don’t think this campaign is going to have much success if you are going to repel Christians from getting onboard and seeing your reasoning. I feel that I have just as much right to be whatever way I am religiously than any homosexual has the right to be gay, or as any black person has the right not to be discriminated against.
As for being “raised” there are many Christians who convert. Likewise with Islam and other world faiths. I personally was raised in a Christian family but I doubted for many years until I accepted Christianity for myself. This is free thought at work. I have thought for myself, I read the Bible, I believe in it because it was convincing. Claiming that Christians don’t have free thought just shows how stuck in militant atheism you are.
If this is going to be an effective campaign and if you want people of all religious groups to come together, you are going to need a more inclusive approach. If this cause ends up being the mere promotion of militant atheism, you can count me out.
Comment by Gareth — May 15, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Mujaahid wailed:
Cormac: This ‘Science Delusion’ that you are under precludes any understanding of the Divine, I feel sorry for you. But you go on believing that you’re sum total of some cosmic accident, perhaps YOU are
Comment by Mujaahid — May 14, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Please state exactly where you think my understanding of the so-called “divine” is lacking.
I am not the sum-total of some cosmic accident. I am simply the result of evolution, which is in turn most likely the result of biochemical reactions consequent to chemical and physical processes which arise as a direct consequence of the birth and death of stars.
Whether or not the universe is an accident, the inevitable consequence of nature, or the act of a deity is not known.
You make an assumption that such a deity exists, based on nothing at all but your own wish fulfilment and moral cowardice.
Even if such a deity existed, it is another unwarranted assumption that you make to believe that your god interferes in daily life.
You make a further unwarranted assumption that it cares about how you behave.
And what do you base all these assumptions upon?
You base them upon the ravings of a paedophile warmonger.
His ravings may either have been the result of total delusion or a very cynical ploy to generate wealth and power.
But you swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker. Not only that, but you want to stop me from making these statements.
I don’t want to stop you from talking about your religion. In fact, I’d protest on the streets to protect your right to do so.
You, on the other hand, want to have me convicted and jailed for the same human right.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 15, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Mujaahid burbled:
Do you think a Muslim, Christian or Jewish child chooses to be born into its particular religious society? Odd??? But you would expect Muslims, Christians and Jews to stop being who they are simply to fit into your cruel and judgemental society and it is for this and many other reasons that they deserve protection from your sort.
I would no more advocate the right to a paedophile than a homosexual. But as you’re the one who’s convinced the latter is somehow genetic, prove that the former isn’t!
Comment by Mujaahid — May 14, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
There is no such thing as a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish child. There are only children. Religious labels such as the ones you employ are imposed by you and people like you. Such labelling is the first step in the constant policy of sectarianism, which is the lynchpin of all religion.
Speaking of cruel societies, life hasn’t improved a whole lot in Swat province since the Taleban got Sharia imposed there.
Neither was life improved in Afghanistan under the Taleban, with their idiotic Sharia.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 15, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
Mujaahid gibbered:
Matt: From a Scriptural (Judeo/Christian/Islamic) standpoint, which is the only basis for a moral argument, then yes – it has never been morally acceptable. However, you are not arguing from that standpoint and cannot therefore speak of morality. So in terms of acceptability, then yes there was a time when it was considered acceptable to denigrate based on the colour of one’s skin.
All children are born Muslim Matt; they are born upon what Islam would deem the fitrah. It is their parents, society etc that change them into Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. Dawkins would argue that we are in fact predisposed toward religion, go back to the idea of fitrah and there you have your answer.
When you choose not to teach your child about religion, have you not therefore co-opted them into an ideology? Do you not consider that rather odd?
I don’t believe I used ‘homosexual rights’ to advance anything, nor would I. I did speak of it being acceptable to denigrate them in the past, and that it was no longer the case. Methinks you protest too much.
With regard to the genetics of sexuality, the floor is yours.
Excuse my lack for erudition.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 14, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
At this point it would probably be appropriate to “call Poe on you” as the saying goes. However, I think, sadly, that you are quite serious in your delusion.
Children are born with a clean slate as far as religion goes.
The fact is that I will teach my son about religion. He will also (be forced to) learn about it at school.
The difference between you and me is that I will leave it up to him to decide.
Can you explain why your god insists on recruiting children, rather than waiting until they are adults and capable of making an informed decision?
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 15, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
re: comment #163
gareth, I understand why you would object to matt o’briens denigration of your religious beliefs. However I suspect that like me you would agree he is within his rights to do so and that is the fundamental principle which underlies objections to this proposed law.
Please don’t allow the very act of free speech to put you off defending the right to free speech.
Comment by imokyrok — May 15, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Cormac: It isn’t a human right to offend, more especially when there statements are simply untrue. A warmonger is an individual who urges or attempts to stir up war, if anything Muhammad was the opposite as history testifies. A pedophile is by definition someone who has sexual relations with pre-pubescents, not only that but it is condition defined by its recurrence – again history testifies that Muhammad only ever had relations with post-pubescent females within the confines of a marriage relationship, a practice that was both condoned and accepted in that time and in that place. Your infantile blubberings betray your only intent – to grossly insult and offend.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 15, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
Seemingly it is. You seem to offend nearly everyone you encounter Liam. No one on P.ie liked you. Dr Afridi ended up not liking you. People in the Mosques don’t like you. People who visit your mpac blog don’t like you judging by the comments, the comments on your youtube videos don’t like you… need I go on. And if offense was a crime how many years would you be serving?
Comment by Garlandgreen — May 15, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Mujaahid jabbered:
Cormac: It isn’t a human right to offend, more especially when there statements are simply untrue. A warmonger is an individual who urges or attempts to stir up war, if anything Muhammad was the opposite as history testifies. A pedophile is by definition someone who has sexual relations with pre-pubescents, not only that but it is condition defined by its recurrence – again history testifies that Muhammad only ever had relations with post-pubescent females within the confines of a marriage relationship, a practice that was both condoned and accepted in that time and in that place. Your infantile blubberings betray your only intent – to grossly insult and offend.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 15, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
Mohammed fought wars did he not? In particular, after he defeated the Meccans, who were I suppose his legitimate military enemies. Mind you, he was an apostate to THEIR religion, so following Islamic law, shouldn’t he have been executed, and all his followers executed by the Meccans for their apostacy?
Mohammed had sex with a child, didn’t he? Even if it only happened once, it makes him a paedophile. You cannot squirm out of this reality. It makes no difference if it was “acceptable” in those days. He desired to have sex with a child, and he followed through on that desire.
I couldn’t care less if you are offended by what I say. Noone has a right not to be offended. The notion that people have a right not to be offended is one of the biggest fallacies of the modern era.
Now, are you going to address the other points I’ve made, or are you going to concede the argument?
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 15, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Continued…
I meant to say that AFTER he defeated the Meccans, he went on to fight a war of conquest in Arabia, didn’t he?
A warmonger, who left a legacy of imperialist conquest.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 15, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Why don’t Muslims drink beer? I know its because Mohammed banned his followers from drinking the fermented juice of the grape, but did he say anything about the fermented juice of the barley?
I think the prohibition on beer was only made up by his followers, as was the restriction on free speech ….and the call for a law against blasphemy…..and the flying horse…..and the whole rotten concept and ….
Comment by Jack Butler — May 15, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
#192: imokyrok – Matt has every right to exercise his free speech, and I have every right to exercise mine to say that he is speaking a load of tripe. I think this campaign is going wrongly if you have groups like “Atheist Ireland”, and “Humanist Association of Ireland” behind it. It should have been set up as a secular cause without any athiest organisations involved and it should have been open for religious people to have their say. Otherwise, I cannot find any space to support a campaign which has an agenda other than to prevent the passing of this blasphemy law.
Comment by Gareth — May 16, 2009 @ 1:09 am
Gareth, why then didn’t those other than the Athiest and Agnostic groups set up such a campaign.
While I’d welcome any support in opposing this proposed law, one cannot expect those of us who feel that ALL religious belief is (at best) silly, not to respond to lunacy such as that propounded by the likes of Mujaahid.
Yes the bill must be opposed. Yes the bill is a fact because a theist feels the need to prop up his beliefs using the forse of law. And yes, the bill must be opposed because if it becomes law, it will be illegal to laugh at peoples invisible friends.
Comment by Jack Butler — May 16, 2009 @ 1:32 am
Mujaahid, do you realise how foolish you sound? Aisha, mohaMAD’s “favourite” wife *shudder* was 9 years old when the “marriage” was consumated. mohaMAD was in his 50’s at the time. This is simply disgusting behaviour yet “muslims” revere this sicko as a “prophet.”
You also have failed yet again to answer my previous question so I’ll ask you AGAIN (FOURTH time now!…):
As a “muslim” do you believe that the harm caused to gays by denigration (e.g. by religiously mandated hatred and murder) is now no longer acceptable?
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 16, 2009 @ 7:22 am
#199 – Jack Butler
[blockquote]Gareth, why then didn’t those other than the Athiest and Agnostic groups set up such a campaign.
While I’d welcome any support in opposing this proposed law, one cannot expect those of us who feel that ALL religious belief is (at best) silly, not to respond to lunacy such as that propounded by the likes of Mujaahid.
Yes the bill must be opposed. Yes the bill is a fact because a theist feels the need to prop up his beliefs using the forse of law. And yes, the bill must be opposed because if it becomes law, it will be illegal to laugh at peoples invisible friends.[/quote]
Christians have been writing into the Irish Times and the like to show their opposition. It’s been relatively clear that most of them oppose this. No doubt some will support.
I didn’t say that atheist shouldn’t respond to the blasphemy bill, I’m merely saying that organisations such as “Atheist Ireland”, and the “Humanist Association of Ireland” give it a clear bias beyon what it actually intends to do, and one could suspect ulterior motives behind the actual deed itself.
As for laughing at God, feel free. I don’t get the point of it myself. I do however appreciate debate with atheists and agnostics and if the blasphemy law were to come in how do we know that statements in debate could not take widespread offence. Indeed in inter-faith dialogue the same applies.
Comment by Gareth — May 16, 2009 @ 9:00 am
Matt: Your retrospective morality is noted, and duly discarded for the infantile silliness that it is.
Cormac: I pointed you to the accepted definitions of the lexis you used, your whimsical rantings do not constitute authority.
Gareth: I am surprised that you, as a religious adherent, should seek to align yourself with those who will only further seek to curb your rights to practice your religion in the public sphere. These people do not, as you and I clearly do, have a ‘live and let live’ approach. They have consistently sought to remove religion from all facets of Irish life, and the effects are all too clear. If you wish to accelerate the descent into anarchy, a loss of morality and social order then by all means affiliate yourself with these advocates of licentiousness and godlessness.
Garland: Wasn’t it Jesus who is reported to have said: “If the world hates you, you should realize that it hated me before you” I think I’m in good company.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 16, 2009 @ 9:35 am
Gareth
I would also prefer that an organised campaign were unaligned, because the right to free speech transcends all belief and non belief systems. However it would seem that no such unaligned campaign exists at present and so I’m prepared to support resistance wherever I meet it, be it religious or non-religious. In the interests of an effective campaign I would hope that most atheists (of whom I am one) would refrain from debating the merits of religious belief systems on the campaign site. There are plenty of other more appropriate places to indulge our debating skills on the internet.
Comment by imokyrok — May 16, 2009 @ 10:43 am
You’ve hit the nail on the head there imokyrok and the crux of the matter is that the few that have posted comments here (about a 100+, hardly the outrage you guys were expecting, eh?
) have no desire to separate the bill and the issue of religious adherents. They want religion out of the picture, period!
Comment by Mujaahid — May 16, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Mujaahid: I actually agree with that last point. There is an ulterior motive in this whole campaign. It isn’t all about this potential law, it’s about a chance to oppose religion so it seems.
As for your mention of me aligning myself with those who seek to curb my rights? Curb my rights to what? Speak freely? They aren’t doing this. I would rather that people cause offence to me than to curb my own personal rights of free speech.
As for you, do you think that Allah won’t be able to defend Himself at the final judgement? I personally think that the God of Israel will judge everyone who violates His laws at the coming of Jesus Christ. Until then we are to submit to civil authorities (Romans 13:1). Christians are different to Muslims in the respect that Christianity is more a community ideology rather than one that takes key role in governance.
If this blasphemy law comes in, it doesn’t really affect me per sé, it’s more the principle and the effects it could have. Remember, Islamic opinions such as yours could be potentially “offensive” to members of another religious group. Would you want your opinion curbed in this case?
imokyrok: Here, here! Full agreement there.
Comment by Gareth — May 16, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
So Liam you are admitting that the right to offend is a sacred one since Jesus apparently offended people?
Comment by Garlandgreen — May 16, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Oh and 200+ comments. Check out Mpac.ie and see how many comments there are there . And this site has barely been around a wet week. Liam you always make a rod for your own back
Comment by Garlandgreen — May 16, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Quote
The proposed blasphemy bill is important in that it will effectively cut off the last avenue of hate open to racists, hatemongers and dissenters. At one time it was deemed acceptable to denigrate black people, women, homosexuals, those with disabilities etc – the harm caused to these people is no longer acceptable, we know need to protect a very vulnerable group – those of religious persuasion. Free speech is not a license to offend, it is time to revitalize the lost culture of civility and politeness and as we have shown an inability to do this willingly (we had to create laws to protect the other groups)then the blasphemy law is not only good but necessary.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Unquote
Hi Mujaahid are you a Muslim and if so which iteration of Islam do you subscribe to, for example that of Sheik Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz of Saudi Arabia?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian WAiner
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 16, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Gareth: I understand what you are saying, but let’s speak plainly here: what’s being called for here is the right to grossly insult and offend, how displaying a depiction of Jesus on cross having fellatio performed by a Roman centurion advances dialogue is anyone’s guess. Or printing a vile cartoon of Muhammad with his turban replaced by a bomb – how does that aid understanding? I would love to be able to present to the average Irish man and woman visible evidence of what these people are advocating. You are correct, there is an agenda and it is not pro-religion. I would direct you to a very reasoned response to this issue: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0516/1224246700201.html
Comment by Mujaahid — May 16, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
I would be glad if some folks would post in my thread
http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/78375-attempt-turn-irish-republic-islamic-state.html
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 16, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Sorry Gareth, wrong article: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0507/1224246048843.html
People here have an advantage over you and I in that they have no moral depths to which they will not plummet, and as Allah said in the Quran “They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse”
Comment by Mujaahid — May 16, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Quote
Gareth: I understand what you are saying, but let’s speak plainly here: what’s being called for here is the right to grossly insult and offend, how displaying a depiction of Jesus on cross having fellatio performed by a Roman centurion advances dialogue is anyone’s guess. Or printing a vile cartoon of Muhammad with his turban replaced by a bomb – how does that aid understanding? I would love to be able to present to the average Irish man and woman visible evidence of what these people are advocating. You are correct, there is an agenda and it is not pro-religion. I would direct you to a very reasoned response to this issue: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0516/1224246700201.html
Unquote
Well, actually depicting the Prophet Jesus PBUH having fellatio performed by a Roman Centurion, might or might not advance dialogue but at least it gets people thinking about Jesus and there is a saying, nobody kicks a dead dog, that is if you do not find the mention of dogs to be offensive. And speaking of other things which may be offensive to Muslims, there are pigs. But the question must be asked in respect of pigs, are they not a creature created by Allah the Merciful and the the compassionate and if they are, has not Allah placed his hand upon them and blessed them. Now for sure, Allah in his wisdom has commanded the faithful not to eat of the flesh of the pig, but many animals are not eaten and still they have nobility,like the eagle for for example, so why not the pig? As for the cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH with a bomb in his turban, this cartoon is not disrespecting the Prophet, the Prophet fought wars, he was not tyrant, this cartoon is showing disrespect to the hypocrites who would seek to impose tyranny and would try to hijack Islam to do it.
Quote
AL-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION)
Total Verses: 129
Revealed At: MADINA
009. 068.
YUSUFALI: Allah hath promised the Hypocrites men and women, and the rejecters, of Faith, the fire of Hell: Therein shall they dwell: Sufficient is it for them: for them is the curse of Allah, and an enduring punishment,-
PICKTHAL: Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them, and theirs is lasting torment.
SHAKIR: Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment.
Unquote
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 16, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Quote
Sorry Gareth, wrong article: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0507/1224246048843.html
People here have an advantage over you and I in that they have no moral depths to which they will not plummet, and as Allah said in the Quran “They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse”
Comment by Mujaahid — May 16, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Unquote
It is only Allah that merciful and the compassionate that truly may know what is in the heart of a man.
[quote]
AL-E-IMRAN (THE FAMILY OF ‘IMRAN, THE HOUSE OF ‘IMRAN)
Total Verses: 200
Revealed At: MADINA
003. 029.
YUSUFALI: Say: “Whether ye hide what is in your hearts or reveal it, Allah knows it all: He knows what is in the heavens, and what is on earth. And Allah has power over all things.
PICKTHAL: Say, (O Muhammad): Whether ye hide that which is in your breasts or reveal it, Allah knoweth it. He knoweth that which is in the heavens and that which is in the earth, and Allah is Able to do all things.
SHAKIR: Say: Whether you hide what is in your hearts or manifest it, Allah knows it, and He knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and Allah has power over all things.[/quote]
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/003.qmt.html
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 16, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
[blockquote]Gareth: I understand what you are saying, but let’s speak plainly here: what’s being called for here is the right to grossly insult and offend, how displaying a depiction of Jesus on cross having fellatio performed by a Roman centurion advances dialogue is anyone’s guess. Or printing a vile cartoon of Muhammad with his turban replaced by a bomb – how does that aid understanding? I would love to be able to present to the average Irish man and woman visible evidence of what these people are advocating. You are correct, there is an agenda and it is not pro-religion. I would direct you to a very reasoned response to this issue: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0516/1224246700201.html/blockquote
Mujaahid: I feel I can relate to you somewhat. Let me explain my reasoning more clearly. Of course I don’t like being insulted or offended, however, I can’t see what is different about the current situation than what it would be if it were criminalised. People are still going to blaspheme in every day situations. What do I say? Let them offend me, I have the victory when God is behind me. Think of it as a challenge, as a means to fight for your faith more and more each day. I have victory in Christ Jesus, I don’t need extra protection to defend myself from tripe like what Matt O’Brien has posted and I will stand up to refute such nonsense.
I also have an issue with what this blasphemy law could cause. If I say that Jesus is Lord and that Jesus is the Messiah who was raised on the third day, and that Jesus fulfilled the Torah that could be grossly offensive to Orthodox Jews. My religion is blasphemy to them. Things that I say about the Gospel could be seen as blasphemy.
In the USA there has been hate crimes placed on pastors that speak about contentious ethical issues such as abortion and homosexuality in their churches. Free speech can be curtailed for religious people too. I will let the Lord judge those who sin against Him. It is up to us to defend our faith, not to suppress criticism but to deal with it head on. That’s the only way to truly deal with this issue.
As for your quote from the Qur’an (I’ve read sections myself), the Bible has quotes to similar effect. The heart treasures abominations, human nature is fallen due to the transgression of Adam in Christianity (Romans 5:12). Shouldn’t we not be trying to be out there convincing people to turn to God and challenging people to be spiritually fulfilled without hiding what they truly feel?
Comment by Gareth — May 16, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Gareth: these differences between Jews, Christians and Muslims have existed for a thousand yrs plus. Even when this law was on the UK statute books no cases were brought because they would simply be thrown out. Legitimate differences exist, and as believers we are big enough to understand that. I do not buy into the scaremongering that the secularist/atheist corner is promoting.
Yes indeed we should be calling people back from the brink of destruction to salvation, but mark my words – if the atheist/secularist coalition have their way, we will witness a new persecution that will make Stalin’s reign seem tame (that’s my contribution to the scaremongering). I would like you to become a Muslim, I’m sure you’d like me to embrace Christianity, but regardless we have a respect for each other and our respective belief systems. The atheist/secularist coalition have no such respect and want all religion banned from the public sphere. In its extreme form this would see the removal of churches, mosques, synagogues, etc as they would be considered symbols of religion in the public sphere.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 17, 2009 @ 11:19 am
The Atheist/Secularist coalition? Who are they? What’s their website address? I looked up strawman .com but it’s just a fashion store. Oh thats their cunning plan. They want to ban Churches, Mosques and Synagogues because faaaaabulous enough. Hyperbole.com was similarily unfruitful
Comment by Garlandgreen — May 17, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
#63 Mujaahid: Thanks for your response again.
I’m not sure if I am buying into the scaremongering either. I don’t see any real difference this law will make to my life. It only applies to print. Most of the blasphemy I will encounter will be to my face. It’s a part of every day life whether we like it or not. I can avoid a paper, I can avoid listening to something on the radio or on TV. I don’t see there being much benefit in placing this law against blasphemy into action. It could prevent disputes like in Denmark and the pictures of the Prophet Muhammad, however we have to learn to be peaceable members of our society. Some of what we say will offend others, and some of what others will say will offend us. I don’t feel I need protection from every day life.
Indeed, but we need to do this in the most transparent way possible. As for Stalin’s reign. We should assess each law as it comes rather than saying that if something happens a slippery slope will form. If anything comes curbing the rights of people to evangelise and to get their message out and if the people here support that they are mere hypocrites. I defend what is reasonable.
Yes, I would very much like for you to become a Christian. I will respect anyone who talks to me on respectful terms however. Matt O’Brien and others on this page have shown themselves to be incapable to see religious people as a part of common humanity. That is probably the most disturbing of it all. The militant atheism that is being advocated on this page, and the involvement of “Atheist Ireland” and the “Humanist Association of Ireland” is the main reason I am not advocating this cause. They have other motives.
I don’t know about you, but even if there was a law banning advocacy of religion I would take the jailtime. Why are you letting these people scare you?
Comment by Gareth — May 17, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Quote
Gareth: these differences between Jews, Christians and Muslims have existed for a thousand yrs plus. Even when this law was on the UK statute books no cases were brought because they would simply be thrown out. Legitimate differences exist, and as believers we are big enough to understand that. I do not buy into the scaremongering that the secularist/atheist corner is promoting.
Yes indeed we should be calling people back from the brink of destruction to salvation, but mark my words – if the atheist/secularist coalition have their way, we will witness a new persecution that will make Stalin’s reign seem tame (that’s my contribution to the scaremongering). I would like you to become a Muslim, I’m sure you’d like me to embrace Christianity, but regardless we have a respect for each other and our respective belief systems. The atheist/secularist coalition have no such respect and want all religion banned from the public sphere. In its extreme form this would see the removal of churches, mosques, synagogues, etc as they would be considered symbols of religion in the public sphere.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 17, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Unquote
First can you name the specific act that was on the British Statute book, so if I comment about it, I can be sure we are talking about the same thing. I do not believe Jews would have any desire to have such a law brought on to the Irish statute book, as Mr Ahern proposes, to seek to silence those who would want to proclaim the Good News of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for example in the United Kingdom, Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and that has not been a problem for the British Jewish community.
quote
“The British Jewish community is intensely loyal both to Britain and to the royal family especially, and this was simply a way of saying thank you.”
Unquote
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378513123&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Quote
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon Duchess of York, “The most dangerous woman in Europe”, Reichfuhrer Adolf Hitler.
Unquote
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=elizabeth+bowes+lyons&prev=/images%3Fq%3Delizabeth%2Bbowes%2Blyons%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26start%3D84%26um%3D1&imgurl=2bc19b3a40e14db4
Furthermore, in Judaism, the protection of the lives of the innocent, trumps pretty much most things and it is self evidently obvious, Mr Ahern’s legislation is intended to place innocent people lives at risk and will contribute to placing innocent lives at risk and for no benefit and therefor stands in violation of one of the core principle of Judaism.
Quote
Akin to something out of the Twilight Zone, the Imams who routinely spout hate speech from the pulpit and who are instigating these suits are never themselves charged with incitement to immediate violence. Moreover if the film “Fitna,” which merely quotes the Koran and depicts angry Imams, is “hate speech,” then what is the Koran itself?
Unquote
http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/Death_to_Free_Speech_in_the_Nether.asp
As for your charge that,
[quote]
The atheist/secularist coalition have no such respect and want all religion banned from the public sphere. In its extreme form this would see the removal of churches, mosques, synagogues, etc as they would be considered symbols of religion in the public sphere.[/quote]
The State of Israel is a Jewish State and United Kingdom is a Christian state, how many buses have been blown by up Atheists / secularist suicide bombers in Israel and the United Kingdom?
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/LondonBus.jpg
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 17, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
A couple of procedural points with regard to comments:
If you include more than one URL link in a comment, you will have to wait for the comment to be approved before it shows up on the site. It’s an anti-spam measure.
If you want, you can use html for hyperlinks (a href= and /a) and for quotes (blockquote and /blockquote)
html for blockquote etc must be enclosed in < and > signs
Michael
Comment by Michael Nugent — May 17, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Quote
#63 Mujaahid: Thanks for your response again.
Yes, I would very much like for you to become a Christian. I will respect anyone who talks to me on respectful terms however. Matt O’Brien and others on this page have shown themselves to be incapable to see religious people as a part of common humanity. That is probably the most disturbing of it all. The militant atheism that is being advocated on this page, and the involvement of “Atheist Ireland” and the “Humanist Association of Ireland” is the main reason I am not advocating this cause. They have other motives.
Comment by Gareth — May 17, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Unquote
Parking, Mujaahid aside. And speaking in more global terms just because an individual might treat you with courtesy and respect in a web forum, that does preclude the possibility that he or she would not happily also subscribe to a philosophy that would see your throat slit, if they were in a position to do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvlvS2a2AVE
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 17, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
there are typos in my last comment
it should read
does not preclude the possibility that he or she would happily also subscribe to a philosophy that would see your throat slit, if they were in a position to do it.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 17, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Would you oppose the rule of a Wahhabi Islamic State in Ireland, if the consequence was being interned in a concentration camp?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d51poygEXYU
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/new7_jpg.jpg
the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini, second from left.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 17, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
Just another procedural note – html for blockquote etc must be enclosed in < and > signs
Comment by Michael Nugent — May 17, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
I thought that Sharia Law allowed for free worship by Jews and Christians as they were people of the book? It seems to suggest this in the Qur’an. Proselytism is forbidden but apart from that it is meant to be free in Islamic teaching. Mind you proselytism happens in Islamic countries even when it is illegal.
Comment by Gareth — May 17, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Steve M: slippery slope arguments aside, your real objection appears to be that this law somehow panders to religious people. Some people think that race laws do the same for black people and that anti-discrimination laws pander to minorities. Sensible people see and understand that our move away from the politeness principle and a base desire to embrace insult and offense as legitimate forms of attack necessitate laws and respective punishments. MPACIE fully endorses Minister Ahern’s proposal.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
You are apparently conflating race and ideology. Black folks and White folks should have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of the color of their skin. People have no inherent right not to to have their beliefs criticized or even subjected to abuse. I would argue in an Irish context, what you are advocating is inherently unIslamic, in that an Islam which will be progressive and humanistic will be able to make a solid and intelligent case for itself in an Irish society which champions free speech, whilst the sort of dark ages Islamist mentality which characterizes Saudi Wahhabi Islam is advantaged by Mr Ahern’s proposed blasphemy law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNE-GcHhHU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84TSSY8sjzk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFjYlV8YRNY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERo5Rb_qGBo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkY4644Tv9Y
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 17, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Political correctness in Ireland, should be given a resounding intellectual kicking in the blx.
The Confederacy abolished slavery, Islamofascism wishes to preserve and extend slavery.
Black Confederates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks
Jewish Confederates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xiv9ZV8abDo
Irish Confederates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ot7amDyqbY
Irish-born Pat Cleburn proposed turning the tables on Lincoln: free the slaves and enlist them as Southern soldiers. “The necessity for more fighting men is upon us,” Cleburne wrote on January 2, 1864. “We can only get a sufficiency by making the Negro share the danger and hardship of the war. If we arm him and train him and make him fight for his country, every consideration of principle and policy demands that we shall set him and his whole race, who side with us, free.”
http://www.civilwarhistory.com/slavetrade/blacksoldiersCSA.htm
Second Centenary of the Royal Navy’s fight against slavery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PKHp-Pjfdc
Darfurian refugees in Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nad14LmyCtM
Arab Slavery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOs_iv6djhk
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 17, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Well first of all one would need to define what is Sharia law. Just for starters there is Sunni and Shi’ite Islam and there is Wahhabism. The Wahhabis claim they have the most authentic version of Sunni Islam but I believe there is a reasonable case to be made, when looking at Islam from a Western perspective, that Wahhabism is actually a separate religion to Islam.There is in Sunni Islam various interpretations, some of these would be compatible with Western liberal traditions others not so, for example a respect for choice and diversity both within Islam and a respect for choice and diversity within society as advocated by Sheikh Kabbani of the Sufi order of the Naqshbandi Golden chain, would seem highly compatible with Western society. On the other hand, Saudi Wahhabism is simply poisonous to Western society, unfortunately given the huge wealth which Saudi Arabia has generated from oil sales and the huge moneys that Saudi Arabia is putting in to missionary and propaganda activities in favor of Wahhabism, just the sorts of Islam, which could happily co-exist with a Western liberal society, are being driven to the fringes of the World Sunni Muslim community and Wahhabism is increasing placing itself as the mainstream tradition amongst Sunni Muslims. George W Bush, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown have all been guilty in assisting Saudi Wahhabism in it efforts to dominate both Islam and conquer the West.
President George W Bush attempts to provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_QrZm4krT4
President Obama shows his subservience to King Abdullah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCGy6YuFH8
By contrast showing proper respect to a Monarch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLuLEfVNow
The New Fascist Labour Party “British” police attempt to protect Saudi efforts to foment anarchy in the UK, from media exposure fails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFWhmXIAQQQ
A sample of Saudi efforts to collapse British society,
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/faith_and_spirituality/watch/v15811168JWdSd5sq
more of same,
http://www.strimoo.com/video/14135859/Undercover-Mosque-The-Return-Part-3-Veoh.html
and some more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBXHtQDxOo
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 17, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
@ Mujaahid: Any true “muslim” cannot talk of civility and respect for their books incite hatred and death towards e.g. gays and so-called “infidels” ROTFLMAO .
Don’t get me wrong, I am loving the fact that you CAN’T answer my question without shooting yourself in the foot can you Muj? LOL!
That’s four times now I’ve asked and still no response.
Once more for luck!…
As a “muslim” do you believe that the harm caused to gays by denigration (e.g. by religiously mandated hatred and murder) is now no longer acceptable?
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 17, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
@Gareth who wrote:
“Christianity is a part of who I am. I have chosen to believe in God.”
Well Gareth I feel sorry for, I really do.
I am assuming that you have read ALL of the BuyBull and consequently believe in “god.” If this is the case then you frighten me because you will therefore also be on board with stoning gays and killing children as mandated by your “god” (and don’t even think about the tired old “but that’s the old testament!” BS. “jesus” condoned EVERYTHING from the old testament…and you should know that).
Then Gareth whined:
“I feel that I have just as much right to be whatever way I am religiously than any homosexual has the right to be gay, or as any black person has the right not to be discriminated against.”
You exhibit a very special kind of stupidity here Gareth. Not only is your sentence grammatically incorrect: “just as much…than” *rolleyes* but also you’re making tthe same mistake that Muj did in thinking the inborn rights against discrimination legally afforded to gays and blacks are equivalent to the rights that you and your fellow religionists want to have that will stop people criticising your hateful dogma.
I suggest you get some perspective and think about the rights that others already have that could see YOU prosecuted for exercising your religion’s in-built homophobia before you start whinging that, “but THEY’VE got rights; I want some now! Wah…wah…wah…” It just doesn’t work that way.
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 17, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
It’s the best thing that has happened to me and it has given me purpose to live a fulfilling life. I thank God for that every day. If that frightens you so be it. Unfortunately for you you have to tolerate religious adherents such as myself. We are a part of society, I certainly haven’t been convinced that Christianity isn’t true, and I’d probably need a relatively good reason to see it untrue for me to change my lifestyle to suit atheism. I really don’t have to give too much consideration what you think or what any other militant atheist thinks. I consider you as extreme as distortionist Muslims who use Islamic teachings to incite hatred, or even anyone who does the same in any other religion.
You didn’t read any of my comments after this one did you? I don’t support the blasphemy ban at all, I think it’s useless it’s not going to benefit me or anyone else. I also think that you talk a load of tripe. Both are compatible. You can use your right to free speech to blaspheme my religion as much as you want, so can any newspaper. I believe God doesn’t need to be protected by a mere law. I do believe that me being a Christian is just as important to me as being gay is to someone else though so in that sense Liam is right. You just assumed I supported this blasphemy law when I don’t though.
Are you for real? You advocate free speech concerning blasphemy (which I am perfectly fine with), and then you say that Christians, Muslims and so on should be denied free speech. I agree if anyone violates hate speech laws they should be prosecuted (Atheists included), I don’t see any reason to forbid civil free speech on other issues. That’s actually ridiculous and it makes you a hypocrite. If we live in a society with free speech that goes both ways.
Make sure you read my post (or just the bold) I don’t mind before you respond.
Comment by Gareth — May 17, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Matt: The mask slips, this crusade of yours has nothing to do with free speech, because if you have your way religious adherents won’t have any speech rights at all. If anything, this site should be a wake up call to believers of all hues, you are no friend of liberty.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 18, 2009 @ 9:04 am
Matt: You asked “As a “muslim” do you believe that the harm caused to gays by denigration (e.g. by religiously mandated hatred and murder) is now no longer acceptable?”
As a Muslim I have never believed it right to treat anyone as lacking in value or importance, but that does not, nor should it stop me condemning the sin in the interests of what is good for society.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 18, 2009 @ 10:25 am
There is a mystical tradition in the West and in my view the West would do well to retain it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur9RU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaJPfnCi1t8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vmrr1ICtJo
[url="http://www.khalidzaheer.com/"]http://www.khalidzaheer.com/[/url]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuBBlNHCyEI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGhnx_9z-zo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfLxmlnAI8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFpdJ0q1hj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAl4xnGI1s8
http://www.images-photography-pictures.net/ireland_newgrange.jpg
If the Islamofascists really want a fight, we will see how powerful their God or Gods really are, as Thera says when the people cease to honor the Gods, the Gods are no more, the inverse of that is that when the people place honor on the Gods, the Gods return, lets see how the Saudi Wahhabi Djin and their Shaitan does against the likes Pallas Athena.
Best and Warm Regrds
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 18, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
quote
As a Muslim I have never believed it right to treat anyone as lacking in value or importance, but that does not, nor should it stop me condemning the sin in the interests of what is good for society.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 18, 2009 @ 10:25 am
Unquote
Do you believe in a properly Islamic State that, adult males tried by a properly appointed Sharia court of an allegation of having engaged in consensual homosexual sex, should executed if found guilty by the court. By the way who is your sheik or Imam?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 18, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
AN ANSWER AT LAST! It only took four attempts. I’m sure you had no idea how to answer yourself and felt compelled to seek the opinion of some “authority” to tell you what to think hence the delay.
So it is a case of “hate the sin but love the sinner” eh? What a painfully twisted and torn psychology that seems.
Whilst an answer of sorts, it by no means makes your position crystal clear.
Muj said (with emphasis added): “As a Muslim I have never believed it right to TREAT anyone as lacking in value or importance, but that does not, nor should it stop me CONDEMNING the sin in the interests of what is good for society.”
It’s all a question of how one “condemns” isn’t it? I therefore ask you, as a muslim how you would TREAT homosexuals knowing how the qur’an persecutes them and certain hadith advocate their execution. How would YOU therefore TREAT a homosexual whilst CONDEMNING him?
Does sharia “law” not make homosexuality a “crime?” And how should such “criminals” be TREATED? If your personal “ethics” are to be preserved, then surely they should NOT be treated as criminals / second class citizens, “lacking in value or importance,” by imprisoning or executing them?
I put it to you that your religious hatred of the “sin” treats homosexuals with equal contempt since for many the so-called “sin” it is a part of their identity and expression of human love. You are at the same time defaming not only the “sin” but also the “sinner” in the same hate-filled breath.
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 18, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
Mujaahid – You haven’t actually answered the point that a lot of people including Gareth the Christian have made here
that this law could effectively shut you up too. I’d say you offend at least as many people as the “Militant Atheists”
do. If I was to hazard a guess I’d say more. As an democratic socialist first and an atheist second, I defend your right
to offend me, to offend catholics, protestants, jews or whoever might be on your list on any given day.
However, what I won’t allow is for you to curb my freedom of expression. The philosophy that I adhere to is blasphemous
in the eyes of the religious fundementalist. Am I to keep my mouth zipped, not to argue for freedom from economic oppression, that we should struggle for freedom from poverty, that human beings are not born into sin, that religion
is a trick to keep the poor in their place?
In defending my right to say all these things, I defend your right to spout whatever nonsense you like.
Comment by Marcas MacCaoimhín — May 18, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
@Gareth who said: “Unfortunately for you you have to tolerate religious adherents such as myself. We are a part of society…”
Apologies Gareth, I do indeed see that you are NOT for the blasphemy law, but that’s a shame!
You see I am FOR it because it will mean that ALL of us involved in this discussion could be fined / imprisoned under it. Such a farcical law SHOULD be allowed because only then will the religionists (like Muj) realise how stupid it is. You definitely have one up on Muj here (but by the looks of things, most multi-cellular organisms have one up on this fool)
This asinine law might actually be necessary in order to further humiliate the faithful into re-considering the ludicrous nature of their beliefs.
Oh, and I DO tolerate crazy people. I tolerate the beliefs of those who derive (for reasons beyond the sane) some sort of meaning or guidance from ancient, nonsensical rubbish with no basis in reality. I respect the right for a person to be as crazy as they wish…so long as it is kept in the relative safely of their own home (though I do worry about the children). Feel free to go nuts in there as often or as intensely as you like – that’s your individualistic prerogative.
BUT!… The second you start spouting garbage and hate in the public sphere do not expect for once instant that this is “OK” or indeed worthy of any kind of respect.
THIS I shall not tolerate and you’re right; freedom of speech means that this cuts both ways so expect some words in return.
No person, including a religionist deserves to go unchallenged if their views are wrong, offensive, or just downright silly.
I for one am loving this thread: Maybe on some level you are too…maybe you’re thinking about your faith more, maybe you feel impassioned to defend it, maybe it’s having a strengthening effect on you, or maybe it’s making you critically analyse your beliefs a little (doubtful but one can always hope).
Besides, if this law ever does make it through, then when we’re all counting out our thousands of (insert currency here), you’ll no doubt derive some sort of sick comfort from the belief that I’ll burn in “hell” yet I, and no doubt a sizeable proportion of the rest of the free-thinking world, will feel nothing but the most abject pity for your weak and deluded world view and all that it prevents you from knowing.
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 18, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
@Muj the jihadist who intoned ominously:
“People here have an advantage over you and I in that they have no moral depths to which they will not plummet, and as Allah said in the Quran “They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse”
Cue scary music *Da da daaaaaaaaaaa*
Upon reading this drivel, despite myself, I honestly can’t help thinking of <A HREF=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go Ahmed The Dead Terrorist saying this! ROTFLMAO!
Yeah good ol’ al knows best. He’s always right about so many things like killing everyone who doesn’t believe in him, everyone who is an infidel and all the gays etc. etc. etc. (there’s an AWFUL lot of death prescribed by this evil deity isn’t there).
Ever wondered how this “rank hatred” came about Muj? It’s from being told by bigots like you to “respect” your abhorrent, hate-filled and murderous views.
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 18, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Not sure why that didn’t work…here goes again…
<a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 18, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
Oh well, you can Google it on Youtube. If you haven’t already seen it is hilarious and just the kind of thing Muj will no doubt want to see you heavily fined or imprisoned for laugh at. So laugh heartily whilst you still can!
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 18, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
I don’t consider myself or many other Christian adherents to be crazy. I seek guidance from the Bible because I do find that a lot that is in it does relate to reality right down to the discussion I am having with you or with any atheist. I know that you consider me crazy or foolish for the reason is given to me:
However, what does the Bible say that I should do when I am encountered by what you post? Simple:
In all things this book has value. The more I look at it, and the more I look to it for showing me how best to live on a relatively coherent level. Problem is, I am going to be public about my faith, it’s who I am. As I say just as much as someone can identify as being gay, I can identify as being a Christian. I have no shame in my religion, infact it’s my pride.
The same for you although I have a different rule to yours. You are always worthy of respect. I just think that you have a limited scope of what Christianity is. I also feel you have demonstrated that you don’t truly understand Covenantal theology either (e.g Why Christians don’t encourage the death penalty). I won’t get into it here in too much detail however.
Same for you. I am entitled to criticise you. I think that you have been wrong, and downright silly. Atheism doesn’t have to be this way. Your particular brand of atheism is quite silly though.
I like this opportunity I have to give my views on the topic at hand. It’s gone quite off topic however. I think about my faith a lot. I’ve argued with atheists for quite a long time in a calm and a receptive manner. I think about why I believe, and you’re right many people don’t. Arguing with atheists has strengthened my faith considerably. When I am challenged by atheists it encourages me to seek answers to the objections that are raised.
No. I don’t find any pleasure in the fact that you’ll burn in hell. I don’t even know if you are going to hell, and I don’t have the authority to tell you that you are going to hell. There is every chance you will come to belief at some point. I don’t get any comfort from this.
I don’t consider my faith weak. I consider it my strength. As for calling something “weak and deluded” this is merely empty rhethoric you use, and then theres the whole “atheism has a monopoly on logic” nonsense too, or that science somehow advocates atheism even when science is an entirely secular field of study without any atheist input.
Comment by Gareth — May 18, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
Well that’s comforting to know Gareth.
Your buybull verses are mere self-referential comfort statements for a tissue of nonsense; nothing more.
Anyone willing to suspend disbelief long enough to accept as reality a talking snake and impossible physics is clearly not living in the real world.
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 18, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
Gareth wrote: “In all things this book has value”
Errrm, in a word…no:
I can list you over 1000 instances of injustice, over 900 instances of cruelty and violence, over 500 instances of intolerance, over 400 instances of contradictions and at least 30 instances of homophobia/gay hatred and over 1200 instances of just plain absurdity.
Sure you might be able to counter cherry-pick to say “…but…here’s nice stuff too!” But the fact remains that as a christian you must believe in ALL of the buybull and consequently I don’t trust anyone who actually believes THAT amount of crap.
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 18, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Thankfully, I have read the Bible for myself, I know what is in there.
Nice, you looked up an atheist website which listed you what they thought were all of these without explaining the context. I think every atheist should actually take a theology course before they come and lecture to Christians about how they should read the Bible.
I don’t cherry pick. I do distinguish between Jewish Law (Old Covenant) and the New Covenant. Jesus reformed much of Judaism and included Gentiles. The Moral laws of the Old Testament are still binding on all Christians, the death penalty is no longer practiced for the following reasons:
1. Death penalties were a part of legal law of the Torah State of Israel which no longer exists.
2. Christians are told to follow the laws of their respective countries (Romans 13:1)
3. Judgements of death penalty required at least 2 witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6-7) and the rulings were carried out by the High Priest (Deuteronomy 17:9-10).
4. The only High Priest in Christianity is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14 – 5:14)
5. The judgement of Jesus Christ on the law is mercy for those who believe for there is no condemnation in Him (Romans 8:1), but anyone who rejects Him will be rejected before the Father (Matthew 10:32). He died so that we may be baptised into His death (Romans 6:2) and that we may have new life (2 Corinthians 5:17).
6. If we have received this mercy, if we do not forgive others we will lose Christs grace (Matthew 6:14), by which we are saved (Ephesians 2:8)
I don’t have the authority to carry out the death penalty. Only Jesus as the High Priest does. Jesus has decided that He will have mercy, and the Lord wants as many people to be saved before the Final Judgement as possible (2 Peter 3:9).
As I say, read the Bible for yourself, do not trust anything that any website tells you concerning it. Unless you have read the Bible for yourself in it’s entirety you shouldn’t be telling other people who have read the Bible for themselves how they should lead their lives. I would advise you to read the Qur’an before criticising Muslims so quickly also.
Thanks for the discussion however.
Comment by Gareth — May 18, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
5. The judgement of Jesus Christ on the law is mercy for those who believe for there is no condemnation in Him (Romans 8:1), but anyone who rejects Him will be rejected before the Father (Matthew 10:32). He died so that we may be baptised into His death (Romans 6:2) and that we may have new life (2 Corinthians 5:17).
6. If we have received this mercy, if we do not forgive others we will lose Christs grace (Matthew 6:14), by which we are saved (Ephesians 2:8)
So right then if a woman is suspected of practicing witchcraft, throw her in a pond and if she floats that proves she is a witch and will need to be burnt at the stake and if she drowns and dies that proves she is innocent.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 19, 2009 @ 12:10 am
Quote
As I say, read the Bible for yourself, do not trust anything that any website tells you concerning it. Unless you have read the Bible for yourself in it’s entirety you shouldn’t be telling other people who have read the Bible for themselves how they should lead their lives. I would advise you to read the Qur’an before criticising Muslims so quickly also.
Thanks for the discussion however.
Comment by Gareth — May 18, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Unquote
I would have a high level of confidence that, many catholic Clergy that were members of the Ustase, had read the bible from cover and I would tend to believe the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini was somewhat familiar with noble Koran. No doubt then in the immortal words of Kenny Everett, it would all be in the best possible taste.
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/yugoslavia_catholic_church.htm
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 19, 2009 @ 12:25 am
, nor should it stop me condemning the sin in the interests of what is good for society.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 18, 2009 @ 10:25 am
OK Mujaahid,
What law in Ireland, at present states that sin is illegal?
What law in Ireland, at present states that sin is wrong?
I glory in sin if it is the opposite to your narrow view of what is right and wrong!
A greater sin is the muslim whipped-up “outrage” demonstrated by the ill-informed crowd loosing it over a few hat-bomb cartoons. Any comment on the sin of killing the innocents on 9-11? Any comment on the celebrations throughout the muslim world on hearing of the 9-11 attacks? I won’t hold my breath!
Yeah, by all means demonstrate over ANYTHING you or your fellow idiots dislike, but do it verbally or in writing, not violantly or with the threat of violance.
People might (rightly) take the piss at your narrow view of things, but they will not do so violently, and you can also respond in a like manner.
It is difficult to respond if dead or afraid for your lfe.
Ask Theo VanGough
Comment by Jack Butler — May 19, 2009 @ 12:42 am
Nobody needs to be put at the stake. If she confesses her sin, repents of it and is baptized in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit she can be saved like all others. Infact this happened to people suspected of witchcraft in the book of Acts.
I’m not a member of said church. I believe that everyone involved in actions concerning Nazism deviated from the truth of Christ. I don’t need to justify these actions, they were plain wrong and an act of distortionism. The Jews were God’s people, and thanks to them we received the Gospel. Without the Jews there is no Christianity, I’m sure Liam would argue there would be no Islam either.
As I say, I’m here only to discuss Christianity as in the Biblical text, not to have to go systematically through atrocities falsely made in it’s name. I can go through the atheist horrors of the 20th century if I like. I realise it’s just as fallacious, it wasn’t true Christianity that motivated atrocities it was the greed of man, likewise it wasn’t just atheism behind Stalin, it was greed.
Comment by Gareth — May 19, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Mujaahid,
Do you consider that it will be possible for you to say anything at all about your so-called faith if this law passes? At least if the law is put implemented, if the moron Ahern is as sincere about this as he wishes to paint himself.
How do you deal with the fact that ANY statement of your faith can and will be considered offensive by a large number of people of other faiths?
In the same way, any statement of Catholic or any other faith is offensive to your faith.
You cannot avoid this if you are in any way sincere about your faith.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 19, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Are you arguing that in respect of people in Ireland today, if there is a substantive allegation against a person that they have engaged in witchcraft, that they should be brought before a court and if it is proven that they have indeed practiced witchcraft and they refuse to confess their sin, repent of it and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that the court should order that they be brought to a place of execution and burnt at the stake?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 19, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
No I amn’t arguing that at all. I’m merely saying that the New Testament understanding forbids us use the death penalty on others. Christians are meant to be subservient to the State (Romans 13:1), so as such I don’t advocate legislating against witchcraft no, just as I don’t advocate legislating against blasphemy.
Comment by Gareth — May 19, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
@ Gareth.
If your post, as quoted below, isn’t the biggest example of a cherry pick I’ve seen in a long time I don’t know what to think. You are a caricature of yourself:
I don’t cherry pick. I do distinguish between Jewish Law (Old Covenant) and the New Covenant. Jesus reformed much of Judaism and included Gentiles. The Moral laws of the Old Testament are still binding on all Christians, the death penalty is no longer practiced for the following reasons:
1. Death penalties were a part of legal law of the Torah State of Israel which no longer exists.
2. Christians are told to follow the laws of their respective countries (Romans 13:1)
3. Judgements of death penalty required at least 2 witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6-7) and the rulings were carried out by the High Priest (Deuteronomy 17:9-10).
4. The only High Priest in Christianity is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14 – 5:14)
5. The judgement of Jesus Christ on the law is mercy for those who believe for there is no condemnation in Him (Romans 8:1), but anyone who rejects Him will be rejected before the Father (Matthew 10:32). He died so that we may be baptised into His death (Romans 6:2) and that we may have new life (2 Corinthians 5:17).
6. If we have received this mercy, if we do not forgive others we will lose Christs grace (Matthew 6:14), by which we are saved (Ephesians 2:8)
I don’t have the authority to carry out the death penalty. Only Jesus as the High Priest does. Jesus has decided that He will have mercy, and the Lord wants as many people to be saved before the Final Judgement as possible (2 Peter 3:9).
As I say, read the Bible for yourself, do not trust anything that any website tells you concerning it. Unless you have read the Bible for yourself in it’s entirety you shouldn’t be telling other people who have read the Bible for themselves how they should lead their lives. I would advise you to read the Qur’an before criticising Muslims so quickly also.
___________________________________________________________________
I suggest you read the bible again. I look forward to you telling us what the context is that excuses god for ordering genocide, infanticide, murder, rape, incest, and war.
Furthermore, I look forward to you explaining how an omnipotent and omniscient god (which in any case is a contradiction), changes from being a bloodthirsty, murderous, sex-crazed, and depraved deity to a lovey-dovey hippy kind of god.
Not that the “New Testament” god is any such thing. He/She/It still condemns people to eternal torment for following their “god-given” instincts, and failing to keep his arbitrary rules.
I really would like you to address these central issues.
I have read the bible cover to cover more than 5 times.
Noone needs a website to reveal the nonsense that is the bible.
You are a cherry-picking bible thumper, as is every other christian on the planet.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 19, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
How do you feel about pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc – are they not also ‘a part of their identity and expression of human love’. You disgust me.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 19, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
I’ve read the Old Testament, and I believe that divine punishment was justified then as I think that it is now. However you would have to go through particular cases of each of the examples you have given.
God doesn’t condone incest at all from what I remember of the Jewish Torah. Genesis concerning Lot is to demonstrate sin. Genesis also describes Judah using a prostitute which was recorded as being sinful in the same text.
I’ve read all these passages, I don’t find them shocking. I don’t find divine punishment for sins shocking either.
God doesn’t change. God did have a different relationship between Himself and the Jews, than between Himself and the Gentiles and the Jews who would accept Jesus Christ under the New Covenant. (Read Isaiah 54, and Jeremiah 31 both in the Old Testament which explain this).
People are deserving of this. We have all sinned. The penalty for sin is death. Jesus Christ died for our sins so that we could be baptised into His death and be raised again into new life. You can either choose His grace which He has given freely given us all, or you can reject this grace and be rejected by the Father.
It’s like if you are out swimming with your friend in the sea and you hit a high tide. A lifeboat comes by. Your friend gets into the boat. You refuse. The speedboat drives off. You continue to drown, your friend has been saved. Only difference is I believe that Jesus is the speedboat.
Not really. I would have gladly continued to discuss the blasphemy law until Matt referred to Christianity. I however am able to defend these criticisms of Christianity.
Comment by Gareth — May 19, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Gareth:
Do you consider god to be omnipotent?
Do you consider god to be omniscient?
Do you believe that god created the universe?
Do you believe that god created man?
Do you believe in free will?
Do you believe in the devil?
Do you believe in hell?
Do you believe in eternal damnation?
Do you believe in salvation?
And if Jesus drives off in his magic boat, and leaves me drowning, even though HE put the water there, even though HE put me in the water, HE created me with a high probability that I would not be able to swim, HE created me with the need to breath air, that I wouldn’t be able to climb into the boat, doesn’t that make him complicit in murder?
Nice forgiving character there Jesus. What a joke.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 20, 2009 @ 9:48 am
I believe in all of those things. However if you want to discuss the “apparent contradictions in Divine attributes” I’d suggest that you take a look to Brian Davies, “Philosophy of Religion: An anthology”. This deals with the subject in a much better way than I ever could.
Anyhow, with my analogy. You are correct to say that God would have put the water there, but you would be incorrect to say that God hasn’t offered you salvation in that incident. You rejected His offer. In that analogy you would have been perfectly able to climb into His boat but you had rejected His offer. That leaves yourself and yourself alone for the decision that you have made. You are accountable.
Comment by Gareth — May 20, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
This blasphemy issue is, I am assured a remainder from DeValera’s 1937 constitution.
Why am I not surprised.
Remember this man was an anti-democratic traitor who refused to acknowledge the will of the people, expressed in a referendum, at the end of the war of independace. He took a oath in line with his alleged religious beliefs and stated that this oath was “just a meer formula” to allow entrace to the Dail (pragmatic or a betrayal of his “Lord”) thareby loosing all moral authority. The crowd hat seem to be in favour of this blasphemy law seem to be the intellectual decendants of those that behaved so dishonourably in support of Fianna Fail and DeValera all that time ago.
Yet (for expedient purposes I can only deduce) he bases his 1937 on an acnowledgement that all power comes from god. -what about power coming from a gun, from a disregard for the will of the majority and from a convenient breaking of one’s word to one’s god.
Comment by Jack Butler — May 20, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Muj the bigot snarled: “How do you feel about pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc – are they not also ‘a part of their identity and expression of human love’. You disgust me.”
No wonder such a hate-filled reaction comes from a religionist – especially a “muslim.” You are clearly very stupid and here’s why:
Yet again, you have not thought through your “argument.” Paedophilia, incest and bestiality have nothing to do with homosexual consensual sex. Are you for real? Are you really THAT stupid as to not be capable of grasping this fundamental lack of link that you seem to think there is?
But a more interesting question Muj is this: how do YOU feel about paedophilia? (Unless of course you’re American in which case it is how you spelled it *rolleyes…again!*).
Your so-called “prophet” was a paedophile. You should know this. He was in his 50’s, she was ….nine….NINE dude!!! THAT is fucking sick and if you still revere ol’ Mo whilst believing this, then you have absolutely no right to be disgusted by anything I or anyone else thinks, says or does.
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 20, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Matt: the crime of paedophilia appears to be very common in Ireland, would your desire to talk about a situation (which by all definitions of the term does not fall under the category)1430yrs ago not be considered a wee distraction given the propensity for indulgence here? I mean only today a report was issued that highlighted the systematic and widespread sexual abuse of children in Ireland – you’re pitiful attempts to mar the Prophet with a very Irish stain is laughable.
I’m glad you didn’t attempt to prove some ‘gay gene’, that would have been fun but have instead opted for the idea of consent. So, let me ask you what constitutes consent, is it age? Which age, is that based on consensus? We’ve seen the age of consent go from 10 yrs of age 100yrs ago to 21 in the 50s/60s, and then back to 18, now 16 and there’s talk of 14 – what next?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 20, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
To dignify your chronic point-missing with a direct response would be a failing on my part to not at least try and improve your woeful debating skills.
Observations first:
1.) You originally likened religionists rights to certain rights against discrimmination against in-born traits. This was an error…
2.) Then you likened homosexuality; the sexual expression of which is usually a consensual act, to sexual crimes which are by their very nature non-consensual. This was also an error…
3.) Now you think that I’ve “opted” to debate the “idea” of consent over genetics (you have a very muddled mind indeed). In fact I merely stated that, according to islamic canon Aisha was 9 years old when 50yr-old Mo’ penetrated her infant vagina with his adult penis. In fact it is agreed by certain islamic “scholars” that he indulged in the practice of “thighing” her when she was aged 6 or 7 meaning he would rub his adult penis between her infant thighs until he climaxed. Somehow your sicko forebears thought this was “OK.”
It was YOU who raised the particular issue of “age of consent;” not I. I merely stated that she was 9 years old. This was a further error of yours – making these “leaps of argument: One minute, you’re talking about homosexuality, then next you’re defending paedophiles. We’ll get onto genetics if you like (though I seriously doubt you could hack it given your performance so far) but due to its complexity, I suggest we tidy up your…*ahem*… “style” first.
4.) You are at times incapable of constructing a coherent sentence. Here’s an example that makes no grammatical sense whatsoever: “…would your desire to talk about a situation (which by all definitions of the term does not fall under the category)1430yrs ago…” What on Earth do you mean? The word “situation” is about as broad a “category” as one can get… surely? Never mind *rolleyes*
5.) Further grammar errors to follow but more laughably you seem to think that just because a paedophile story hit the news in Ireland, that my “attempts to mar the Prophet (sic) with a very Irish stain is (sic) laughable.”
Newsflash: Paedophilia is not just an Irish problem. However it does not surprise me in the least that you are so myopic: You are a religionist after all.
Conclusions:
The fact of the matter is that you are actually a very poor debater; quite capable of launching a multitude of poorly constructed strawman arguments into the air, but quite incapable of grasping a single one when they fall back down, are seized upon and picked apart by someone who’s IQ is actually IN the treble figures.
Here endeth the lesson.
Response:
I assume that (if indeed you are even capable of holding down a job) you do not work in the health sector, or in law? (N.B. “sharia law” *snigger* doesn’t count in this country because we have progressed since the middle ages).
If you did, then you might know something about Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines. Clearly you do not. Moreover you’re looking like you’re defending a paedophile; your so-called “prophet.”
Don’t get me wrong, it is immensely fun to watch you flailing in ignorance, illiteracy and stupidity. I’ve no doubt your next instalment will be as ripe with crap as its predecessors…
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 21, 2009 @ 12:09 am
(1) No error at all. The Prophet reported that Allah said, “I created my servants in the right religion but devils made them go astray”. The Prophet also said, “Each child is born in a state of “Fitrah”, then his parents make him a Jew, Christian or a Zoroastrian, the way an animal gives birth to a normal offspring. Have you noticed any that were born mutilated?” (Collected by Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim).
(2) No error at all. As you are aware, no doubt given your lauded three-figure-IQ, homosexuality was until very recently a crime in Ireland. It is only the consensus nature of modern law that has seen this crime become acceptable. The concept of consensus law also leaves open the possibility of many more such crimes becoming acceptable, which you no doubt will argue to the hilt given your propensity for extremes.
(4) There’s nothing incoherent or ungrammatical in the sentence whatsoever, the fault lies with your inability to employ simple cohesive devices that all school children are taught, are you sure you have a three-figure-IQ? Let me help you, the definite article in ‘the category’ (ooops, there’s me assuming again – the definite article is ‘the’) is an anaphoric reference and points back to something mentioned previously. Note that I had previously spoken of paedophilia, which is categorized as a sex crime, on the same line in fact…now you fill in the gaps and prove your worth. The ‘situation’ (a position with respect to conditions and circumstances) I referred to was cataphorically linked to the date reference. What’s special about the date, well it references a time when early marriages (to post-pubescent females) were widespread and socially acceptable for a whole host of reasons. Muhammad did nothing out of the ordinary at that time and in that place, nothing morally condemnable at all.
Matt, you may be the result of such an historical union, in Ireland less than 100yrs ago the age of consent was 10yrs of age, regardless of whether pubescence was in evidence (urgh..sick).
(5)That wouldn’t constitute a grammatical error Matt, it may be a poor lexical choice or perhaps a misguided inference, but a grammar error it is not.
(6) This is where it gets interesting, after making a fool of yourself by demonstrating an abysmal grasp of the English language you now enter the domain of argumentation (you’re probably still in college and full of infantile zeal concerning your new found knowledge). You criticize me for constructing straw man arguments but fail to note, or perhaps ignore, your headlong descent into ad hominem argument. See, I may not know much about Gillick and Fraser, but you who claim to and in addition boast of a three-figure-IQ (lol) obviously think you do, but then demonstrate a poor application of said rules. A teacher Matt, you are not!
Comment by Mujaahid — May 21, 2009 @ 9:16 am
Hi Mujaahid did you ever get around to explaining what branch or strand of Islam you subscribe to?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Comment by Adrian Wainer — May 21, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Gareth:
Anyhow, with my analogy. You are correct to say that God would have put the water there, but you would be incorrect to say that God hasn’t offered you salvation in that incident. You rejected His offer. In that analogy you would have been perfectly able to climb into His boat but you had rejected His offer. That leaves yourself and yourself alone for the decision that you have made. You are accountable.
_______________________
This is a nonsense.
There is a well known method of picking a fight, along the lines of:
“Are you looking at my girlfriend?” – No answer will satisfy this. If you say no, you’ll get kicked for suggesting his girlfriend isn’t worth looking at, and if you say yes, you’ll get kicked for having the temerity to look at his girlfriend.
With the god hypothesis, as proposed by Christians, god sets people up in a similar manner:
1. Creates the universe
2. Creates heaven
3. Creates hell
4. Knows everything that will ever happen in the future (suggesting that free will is impossible – either god is omniscient OR free will is possible. It isn’t possible to have both).
5. God decides that he will not tolerate certain behaviours, and that he’ll sulk if they’re committed.
6. God creates human beings with the inherent drive to commit these prohibited behaviours
7. God knew that Eve would eat that fruit.
8. God casts us out of paradise.
9. God then decides he will torment us forever if we breach the arbitrary rules that he has set up, and that he has created us to breach.
Because god is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent, he knows exactly which person will fail and which person will succeed. This is the unavoidable result of his supposed omniscience.
Therefore, why does god allow those people who will fail to be born? He knows that he will end up tormenting them forever, through his proxy, Satan.
God is therefore creating people for the specific purpose of tormenting them.
Either that, or he is neither omnipotent, nor omniscient.
Satan is the creation of god. As god is supposedly omniscient, he knew what Satan would ultimately do, before he created him. Yet he still created him. Therefore, Satan, hell, and eternal torment are part of god’s plan.
It is therefore a key part of god’s plan that he create a legion of the damned to be tormented forever by god through his proxy Satan.
This is an unavoidable conclusion from the postulation that god is omnipotent and/or omniscient.
Only if god is NOT omnipotent and omniscient does the issue of salvation and damnation become in any way morally and ethically defensible. Even then, it requires that such matters are exterior to god, which reduces his importance even further.
We are not responsible for the silly whims of a self-deluding god.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 21, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Mujaahid,
Did Mohammed or did he not have sex with a 9 year old girl, or in fact, with any girl under the age of 16?
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 21, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Mujaahid,
Would you care to state whether you differentiate between these two scenarios:
1. An adult who has sex with a child, in full knowledge that the child is incapable of informed consent? (Would you agree that the younger a child is, the less likely it is that they are capable of informed consent?)
2. Two adults who have sex together, with the full informed consent of each?
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 21, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Adrian: I follow Islam upon the understanding of the Salafus-salah
Cormac: 16 is the present age of consent, it was at one time 10 in Ireland – are you accusing your own ancestors based on your own warped retrospective morality? Is consent the only issue – what about right and wrong? Example: the German cannibal who posted on the net his desire to eat another human being, the victim consented and was duly eaten, testicles first (they were both homosexual). Is this scenario acceptable to you, seeing as there was consent between two adults or does the social harm play a part in preventing such albeit temporary relationships?
How do you determine consent, a nod, a wink, a smile, a written contract? Islam puts forward puberty as the only reasonable ground for a relationship, you aver a consensus approach that determines consent – a slippery slope toward depravity if ever there was.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 21, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Age of consent has nothing to do with it. I’m asking you about your perception of what is moral and what isn’t moral.
Are you saying that, from today’s perspective, you think that Mohammed was wrong to have had sex with a 9 year old girl.
Again you present a series of red-herrings. The fact that those two people who had a very strange sexual desire to eat human flesh or be eaten by a person has nothing to do with their homosexuality.
Neither did I mention homosexuality in my question.
But, for the record, I don’t really care that those two made their cannibalistic pact. Certainly, the Sharia solution doesn’t change the outcome – under Sharia they’d both be executed wouldn’t they?
You seem to state that under Islam, once a puberty has commenced in a person’s body, they are fair game for predatory adults. Is this what you are saying?
So, to sum up, here are the questions to which I’d like direct answers – not prevarications, not questions in return, but direct answers:
l. Did Mohammed have sex with any person under the age of 16?
2. Please state whether you differentiate between these two scenarios
2a. An adult who has sex with a child, in full knowledge that the child is incapable of informed consent? (Would you agree that the younger a child is, the less likely it is that they are capable of informed consent?)
2b. Two adults who have sex together, with the full informed consent of each?
3. Are you saying that, from today’s perspective, you think that Mohammed was wrong to have had sex with a 9 year old girl.
4. You seem to state that under Islam, once a puberty has commenced in a person’s body, they are fair game for predatory adults. Is this what you are saying?
Direct answers only, thank you.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 21, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
1. Muhammad only had relations with post-pubescent females within the confines of a marriage relationship, an acceptable practice at that time and in that place.
2. Sociological conditions shape society and mores in many different ways, to try and compare Arabian desert life 1430yrs ago with modern day Irish life is like comparing chalk and cheese, a foolish endeavor indeed. Even more foolish is your desire to condemn acceptable actions 1430yrs ago based on your skewed sense of morality (you approve of homosexuality and even cannibalism based on ‘consent’ – something you haven’t defined or determined)- don’t you see how ridiculous that is?
3. [i]‘You seem to state that under Islam, once a puberty has commenced in a person’s body, they are fair game for predatory adults. Is this what you are saying?’[/i] I never said anything of the sort and I have no desire to legitimize what seems to be a very Irish condition. What I did say is that the basis for any marriage relationship in Islam is puberty, which is then complemented by the need for consent of the marriage partners, which assumes maturity.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 21, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Mujaahid, that is what is known in online terms as a “fail”.
You failed to answer any question directly.
Do you know that some children go through puberty as young as 6 and younger?
Puberty is no measure of intellectual or emotional maturity. It is not an excuse. What he did was rape that little girl.
We measure behaviour by modern standards when we seek to apply those behaviours as a standard to emulate in the modern world. This is why it is valid to examine his life in the round, and judge him.
Or do you view Islam as an interesting cultural obsolescence? You can’t have it both ways. Either it is something that is applicable today, in which case he is to be judged by today’s behavioural standards, or it is inapplicable today, in which case, you are wasting your time, or are a self-deluding hypocrite.
Did I say I approve of cannibalism? I said I don’t care what they did. It was a stupid act by the mentally ill. The surviving party is in custody, which is where he should be. Islam, on the other hand, would have stopped the act, but executed the two of them anyway.
It is interesting to me that by now you have compared homosexuality to paedophilia and cannibalism.
Are you saying that Islam requires that a woman gives consent to be married, and consent within that marriage to have sex? That is not the case, and you know it.
Furthermore, how is it that you are now claiming that consent is necessary, when you have already in this thread declared consent to be unnecessary for moral legitimacy.
Also, how is it that you think a pubescent child is capable of consent?
You seem very confused about your beliefs. Perhaps you need to start again from scratch to try to build an internally consistent argument.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 21, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
If judged by today’s standards (as hypocritical as they obviously are) Cormac, even the great historical heroes of the world become monsters – only a fool would place himself on such a pedestal…ooops you already have. We judge people by the standards of the time they were in, and in this regard Jesus, Muhammad and those followed him in righteousness were exemplary.
Islam does require consent for marriage, and it does demand good treatment within marriage. I’m sure there are instances when this is abused, but the west is hardly an example in that regard now is it. At the very least Islam provides a standard to be met by all spouses and we have a noble example in the person of the Prophet.
You still haven’t defined consent or stated how this is given, I await your answer.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 21, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
I’m sorry – what about that 9 year old girl in Saudi Arabia recently. What consent was required there?
Was Aisha capable of giving her consent?
What is the nature of consent, in your interpretation? It is a pretty simple concept. One can only consent to something if one understands the implications of that to which one consents. A child, pubescent or pre-pubescent is incapable of such consent.
Are you suggesting that a 9 year old is capable of consent?
And, yet again, I put it to you that you are being hypocritical. On the one hand you say that his example and teachings are completely applicable to modern life, and on the other, you say that we shouldn’t apply modern principles to his life. You can’t have it both ways, as I’ve already said.
Do you comprehend this simple point?
I’ll try to make it easier to understand. In your second last sentence you claim that the Prophet gives a noble example of the standard to which married people should behave, and you said this in a sentence immediately after declaring that consent is required in Islam.
So, if his example is noble, then you are saying that it is applicable to modern life. You are therefore, by implication saying that marriage to a 9 year old is something that would be acceptable in Ireland today.
Make up your mind.
And please answer the questions you are asked directly. It is only polite to do so, after all.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 21, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Now, now Cormac – you don’t get to ask all the questions without answering a few and one you have consistently dodged is ‘how do you determine consent’?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 21, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
Cormac,
I realise you probably feel that you need to bring the idiocy of Mujaahid into the open and that he is showing us what a mindless follower of a mindless, intolerant, obsolete, cruel and dangerous belief system he is.
His inability to answer a straight question seems only to be self-serving and his failure to see that you have indeed answered a question is inexplicable (example; His last question; “one you have consistently dodged is ‘how do you determine consent’?”
Your PREVIOUS answer; “One can only consent to something if one understands the implications of that to which one consents”
Seems you were pretty straight forward to me.
Unfortunately Mujaahid seems to pick on the semantics of the issue and try to twist the situation to a “what About” scenario rather than deal with the issue.
By the way, this “the Salafus-salah” he claims to follow dosn’t een hae a Wikipedia reference.
I feel at this stage you are only giving the idiot a stage to rant his warped views.
As for that bomb-hatted paedophile Mujaahid follows, we shoould just use the myriad opportunities aailable us to show what a bigot he was.
Comment by Jack Butler — May 21, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
Ah Jack, try act your age dear boy and stop ranting like a spoiled little brat. The answer put forward by Cormac opens up so many possibilities, and is not a tangible definition of consent – who after all can truly understand the implications of what they consent to without first knowing what those implications are? Seems like a cop out to me – so I ask again, define consent.
If your knowledge base is Wikipedia it’s little wonder you evince such blatant ignorance Jack, grow up and get yourself and education.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 21, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Cormac, I’m toying with you – in truth I have little time for someone who believes he is the sole arbiter of morality past, present and future, perhaps when you descend from your egotistical high horse we might continue a reasonable discussion.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 22, 2009 @ 9:43 am
@ Muj
1.) Quoting jislamic references answers nothing. The religio-culturally biased concept of so-called “fitrah” is not proven to be true. It is not evidence; it is a mere opinion and one of a bigoted and antagonistic nature with no merit whatsoever.
Rights protecting from discrimination against in-born traits are simply categorically different to similar rights requested by religionists. Faith / beliefs are a result of environment, not genes. Your error remains.
2.) IQ scores are distributed about a mean (score = 100). This normal distribution means that most people have at least a triple digit IQ score. Note I did not say WHAT my IQ was; simply that it is at least 100. the snarky tone in your response seems to think I was portraying myself as super-intelligent when in actualy fact I was saying that I am at least average. I sincerely doubt you can make an equivalent claim.
Also you fail YET AGAIN to grasp the point I was making regarding consent between two adult gay men being categorically different to sex without consent. This is ironic in a sense because you appear all too keen to discuss it when trying to advance a defense of your perverted “prophet” and his unhealthy penchant for little girls. Do you also do PR for NAMBLA perchance?
3.) (Oh, Muj appears to have “skipped” number 2…He may be an expert on grammar, but countin’ he ain’t…never mind)
4 / 5.) Muj I think we have found the only area in which you exhibit above average capability: grammar. I concur with you that rather than a strictly grammatical error, it was indeed a “poor lexical choice.” If only your grasp of reality were as sound.
6.) I do not fail to note my ad hominem arguments at all. I simply see no point in dignifying stupidity with civility – especially when it purports to advocate the insertion of a 50 year man’s erect adult penis into a 9 year old child’s vagina or the inter-thigh frottage with an even younger girl until he comes. I know its hard for you to understand, but as a human being this is not “OK” with me.
Moreover for one who is capable of recognising ad hominem attacks, by referring to relig-idiotic verse, “The Prophet reported that Allah said…”you fail to recognise your own inverse ad hominem “arguments.” Just become a blood-thirsty paedophile allegedly reported his interpretation of a possible psychotic episode or epileptic attack, in no way makes it true. Your reverence for this pervert makes you just as guilty as I vis a vis ad hominem arguments…only inversely so.
Muj proclaimed: “Muhammad did nothing out of the ordinary at that time and in that place, nothing morally condemnable at all.”
And yet you still revere him? He does not disgust you in any way at all?
Let’s forget about your alluding to moralistic relevatism here for a minute (this is an intersting point since many religionists are absolutists – not relativistis…mmm…) tell me Muj do you have children? Would you be “OK” with a fanatical warlord coming to your house and saying “I want that one” pointing to a young daughter of yours (6-9years old). Would you as her father be “OK” with her being taken away to be molested and ultimately penetrated vaginally by that adult male?
Do you see nothing “morally condemnable at all” with this at all?
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 22, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
@Muj again…
Muj @ Cormac: “You still haven’t defined consent or stated how this is given, I await your answer.”
And yet when someone gives you a hint, Muj, you seem to be incapable of doing your own homework Muj LOL! Are you telling me you can’t use the interwebs to look up Gillick Competence and Fraser Guidelines?
Oh and as an extra…with regard to this little ditty:
Muj @ Cormac again: ” ‘You seem to state that under Islam, once a puberty has commenced in a person’s body, they are fair game for predatory adults. Is this what you are saying?’ I never said anything of the sort and I have no desire to legitimize what seems to be a very Irish condition. What I did say is that the basis for any marriage relationship in Islam is puberty, which is then complemented by the need for consent of the marriage partners, which assumes maturity.
Was Aisha or was she not betrothed / engaged to ol’ Mo prior to his “marriage” to her?
Was she or was she not subjected to him rubbing his erect adult penis in between her 6 or 7 years old child thighs until he climaxed precisely because EVEN HE deemed her too young to be vaginally penetrated as a child by his adult penis.
Of course after they were “married” he most likely gleefully “consummated” their “marriage” by pounding his hard adult penis into her small 9 year old vagina? (And you still don’t see anything wrong with this?)
And ONCE AGAIN, paedophilia is not merely an “Irish stain” or an “Irish condition” you short-sighted fool. This is a much bigger problem: Your so-called “prophet” is as guilty as one of these Irish catholic priests of child rape. The only difference is you feel it was legitimised in your “special case” by a religious (made up) ceremony.
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 22, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
Mugaahid
Quote, “If your knowledge base is Wikipedia it’s little wonder you evince such blatant ignorance Jack, grow up and get yourself and education”.
-get myself “and” education. “And” I need the education?
I may not have an education to compare with one that you may have, however I try to think for myself and base my conclusions on observable fact rather than myth and superstition. I do not claim that my educational standard is of a particularly fine level but it is I feel that it certainly somewhat of an improvement on the Madrasah in which many of your fellow travellers completed theirs.
Your prefacing your comment with the word “if” allows you to make an assumption based on criteria known only to you and base your answer on YOUR criteria, rather than anything that can be assumed by MY comments. -go ahead, reply to your OWN comment.
OK, lets say that Wikipedia is not completely accurate, I’ve no argument with that. Fine, reasonable point.
However neither Google nor Encyclopaedia Britannica (my hard copy)have entries for Salafus-salah either, for which I’m thankful.
Finally, I make no apology for attacking the ridiculous propositions outlined by you in defense of Mohommed the paedophyle, but your I withheld from patronising you by referring to you in terms like Mujaahid my boy.
In my mind it lowers your debating skills to that of “attack my opponent” as I cannot attack my opponent’s ideas.
Comment by Jack Butler — May 22, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Mujaahid blabbered:
The answer put forward by Cormac opens up so many possibilities, and is not a tangible definition of consent – who after all can truly understand the implications of what they consent to without first knowing what those implications are? Seems like a cop out to me – so I ask again, define consent.
——————————————-
And so you make my point for me. The entire point of consent is that in order to give valid consent, one has to be capable of understanding the implications. In order to understand the implications, one must know them.
My point is that a 9 year old girl can neither know nor understand the implications of having an adult penis shoved inside her.
Your confusion lies in the following:
1. You claim that such behaviour by your prophet was acceptable at the time, but unacceptable now
2. The prophet’s life was exemplary, and remains one to be followed as an example by people today in order to live a moral life.
You cannot hold these views simultaneously and still make a consistent argument. They are mutually exclusive, unless you modify point 2.
The required modification is that the “prophet” lived an exemplary life FOR HIS TIME (which is debatable in any case), but that some of his actions are no longer considered good example for the moral life.
This latter modified argument is to say this:
1. There is no objective moral law (I think your god has something to say about this)
2. Mohammed was immoral
You defeat your own argument.
Perhaps try following the logic of your statements through to their conclusions. It will help you avoid smearing the egg all over your face.
Comment by Cormac MacGowan — May 23, 2009 @ 5:20 am
Cormac: Ranaan Gillan defines consent as, “a voluntary uncoerced decision made by a sufficiently autonomous person, on the basis of adequate information, to accept or reject some proposed course of action that would affect him or her.” Without sufficient knowledge of the relative mental maturity of young women in the Arabian desert 1430yrs ago, it seems ridiculous for you to press this point. However modern studies conducted on Sub-Saharan Bedouin women have noted the onset of early physical and mental maturity, early marriages are practiced in those communities.
And what is this predilection with Muhammad? Byzantine kings (the precursor to the Catholic church) married 8yr olds as a matter of course, Ireland itself set the age of consent to 10yrs of age less than 100yrs ago. Like I said before, and I’ll say it again – you, who advocate homosexuality, sexual relationships outside of marriage,extra-marital relationships and a host of other bizarre perversions, are in no position to judge the moral position of the past – take the plank out of your own eye first.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 23, 2009 @ 11:31 am
Muji Baby,
Please acknowledge that anyone can abuse the individual, and as long as you continue to attempt to propagate the crap copied below, you deserve to be castigated. One cannot however accuse anyone of participating in activities that are illegal.
Only a bigot and moron would seriously state the following; “you, who advocate homosexuality, sexual relationships outside of marriage,extra-marital relationships and a host of other bizarre perversions, are in no position to judge the moral position of the past”.
First of all your statement that Comac Mcc Gowan would (inter alia) ” advocate…. a host of other bizarre perversions… is libelous and completely oversteps the boundary of open debate and fair play. It seems to accuse Camac of illegal activity in an open forum of Should Comac wish to take this further, he can rely on the fact that, should he wish, I will give evidence on his behalf.
Secondly, you equate Homosexuality with “other bizarre perversions”.You must be trying really hard to not “get it”. Homosexuality is not illegal and is to a sizable minority a normal state of being.
What’s the difference between “sexual relationships outside of marriage” and “extra-marital relationships”? Even if there is one, neither activity is illegal.
Given the legal situation with regard to same sex unions, of course, sex within marriage is not possible for those in that situation, so It could be stated that you and your cohorts in preventing same-sex unions are also responsible for sexual relationships outside of marriage.
Please do not use any so-called holy texts, fatwā or madrasah inspired points in support of your offensive stance as any such points will only elicit ridicule.
You may if wou wish use arguments based on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to good effect
Comment by Jack Butler — May 23, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Jack old bean – remember that little talk we had on education, please take it to heart.
Who mentioned legal or illegal? A perversion by definition is something that is not good or morally corrupt, and in a free, liberal democratic society I and others are perfectly at liberty to state that homosexuality, pedophilia, licentiousness and other such acts are morally corrupt acts (ah, the wonders of free speech) – there’s nothing illegal in stating that whatsoever. Now instead of indulging in infantile threats, go and learn something. ‘You’ of course has both singular and plural forms, in the context of my utterance can you determine which was implied? Good luck with that
You ask,”What’s the difference between “sexual relationships outside of marriage” and “extra-marital relationships?” …sigh…are you really the best the blasphemy.ie crowd could come up with?
If you believe in the FSM can you prove his/her/its existence please. The onus is on you.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 24, 2009 @ 5:14 am
Muj, my madrasah minded,
I am struck with an overwhelming contempt. As you seem to base all your pronouncements on the guidance on mohom. the child fornicator, the sheer evil of your stance so clear.
It is the many poor ignorant people that have no access to informed debate that I pity. They are lead by the twisted few that suppress them wherever and whenever they assume political power.
The only muslim country with anything approaching democracy is Turkey, and free-speech is not one of the things that attract you to that country.
You have some neck to talk about free speech when your campaign against the blasphemy bill would seek to set free-speech In Ireland and Europe centuries.
Your description of me as one of the blasphemy crowd is curious, given that as a regular poster on this site, that description would also apply to you. However, (and given your comment, it probably just hasn’t occurred to you) I am not one of the blasphemy “crowd”, just one of those who avails of their facilitation of free speech, and unlike you, I am attempting to maintain that right.
Finally, just to deal with your last statement (and you really show your ignorance and make my point here); “If you believe in the FSM can (sic) you prove his/her/its existence please. The onus is on you”.
I since can prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to at least the same extent that you can prove the existence of Allah (pss be upon her)and without resorting exhortations of murder, death etc. For example, who can argue with the “eight I’d really Rather You Didn’ts” compared with the death penalty for apostasy in Islam and Islam’s de facto contempt for section 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.a
The laughable thing about the Koran is that some people claim that it is the literal word of God. No-one has any problem with anyone laughing at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as a matter of fact, if you do laugh, we’ll probably join in.
Comment by Jack Butler — May 24, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Jack, dear boy – special pleading is not the same as proof. Now you’ve asserted a belief in the FSM, prove it exists, you asserted, you prove.
I base ALL my pronouncements on the Quran and Sunnah, unashamedly so!
Nice to see you move swiftly on from your ridiculous threats. You really are a pathetic bunch, I’m only sorry I can’t be there tomorrow evening to personally confront your (collective) stupidity.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 24, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
Muj spluttered: “…special pleading is not the same as proof…I base ALL my pronouncements on the Quran and Sunnah, unashamedly so!”
And if you think THEY constitute proof, then you are a hypocrite.
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 24, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Muj
“Moved swiftly on from my threats”… 1) No threat, just a promise that I’ll be there if needed…2) all the other valid points are ignored or “Moved swiftly on”.
How can one be so ignorant that they (I Quote) “base ALL my pronouncements on the Quran and Sunnah, unashamedly so!” The first real ignorance is the lack of shame.
My reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not an assertion of belief in his/her existance, I meerly make the point that his/her existance is just as likely as that of allah, god, baal, horus or any other MAN-MADE god.
For proof of the righteousness of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,please read the “bible” of that Church (freely available).
Hang on though, perhaps your madrasah or the quran or sunnah forbid you to look at such a blasphemous document.
Infinitely more sensible, readable, non-violent and logical than the quran and sunnah is the bible of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And every bit as provable.
Special pleading? You actually think I actually plead about anything to anyone?
Dumb.
Incidentally to my mind, education is not a simple matter of assimilating data, it is the care with which the data is assembled and the use it is put to that matters. A lack of education does not determine whether or not one is ignorant, it is the use to which one puts that education that matters.
based on the above, I do not consider time served in a madrasah to have any educational value
Again my overwhelming feelings for your co-religionist followers is one of pity.
Pity that they are be so ignorant that they actually believe the crap and evil that you and your cohorts spew
Comment by Jack Butler — May 25, 2009 @ 12:52 am
The greatest ignorance Jack, is to reject something you know nothing about. Incidently, you boys got a mention on the MPACIE site: http://www.mpac.ie/content/view/280/1/
Comment by Mujaahid — May 25, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
Mpacie is your blog Muj. It’s really only worth something we get a plug from someone who’s opinion anybody takes seriously
Comment by Garlandgreen — May 25, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
No, Garland it’s not my blog (it’s actually a website) – I certainly contribute and play an active role in the SouthEast, that’s my remit. No what were you saying about opinion
? Thought you’d be at the blasphemy meeting, listening to Ian ‘Whinger’ O’Doherty?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 25, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
The proposed blasphemy bill is important in that it will effectively cut off the last avenue of hate open to racists, hatemongers and dissenters. At one time it was deemed acceptable to denigrate black people, women, homosexuals, those with disabilities etc – the harm caused to these people is no longer acceptable, we know need to protect a very vulnerable group – those of religious persuasion. Free speech is not a license to offend, it is time to revitalize the lost culture of civility and politeness and as we have shown an inability to do this willingly (we had to create laws to protect the other groups)then the blasphemy law is not only good but necessary.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 11, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Dear Mujaahid,
I am against this proposed blasphemy bill not because I want to “vent my spleen” against those with religious beliefs, but because I believe I should have the right to speak my mind whenever I feel it is necessary to do so. I am not affiliated to any religious organisation and do not subscribe to any religious dogma and I no probelm with those who hold different opinions to mine – unbless of course, such opinions are an actual threat to my physical well-being. If, for example, you are a Muslim, Christian or Jew etc., I don’t care. All I care about is how you treat me as a person. That’s all.
Comment by Martha — May 25, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
Martha: I respect that and welcome your right to speak your mind. However, as you will have seen – the bully boy tactics employed by many here on this site simply betray their real intentions. They are not for free speech, for if they have their way then people like me will not be able to speak our minds freely. Most people can ’speak their minds’ in a courteous and non-offensive way, some simply don’t have any desire to leave the schoolboy bully mentality in the past however and it is those that we must be protected from.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 25, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Martha: I respect that and welcome your right to speak your mind. However, as you will have seen – the bully boy tactics employed by many here on this site simply betray their real intentions. They are not for free speech, for if they have their way then people like me will not be able to speak our minds freely. Most people can ’speak their minds’ in a courteous and non-offensive way, some simply don’t have any desire to leave the schoolboy bully mentality in the past however and it is those that we must be protected from.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 25, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Dear M,
I’m just skimming through this website/forum (its my first time to visit it). Is it true that you are an Irish guy who has converted to Islam? And if so, would you like to say WHY you did, as I, for one, would be very interested to know why you did?
Comment by Martha — May 25, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
Martha: It would be my pleasure, though I would prefer that you use the info@mpac.ie account for such a dialogue. While you most certainly evince a civility and respect, it’s rare on this site – I have no desire to cast pearls before swine.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 26, 2009 @ 1:57 am
Quote from Muj, follower of “Mo the child molester”; “The greatest ignorance Jack, is to reject something you know nothing about”.
First of all Muj, Ignorance simply means “not knowing of”
I haven’t rejected islam without knowing of it. In order to rejsct something one must firstly be exposed to it.
I was (and still am) exposed to it’s manifestation (or should I say infestation) in today’s life.
And there you go again assuming I know nothing about your self confessed reason for living (which you say is islam, that of following the great child molester).
I know enough about the modern manifestation of Islam to avoid it like the plague, something those who have no choice but to accept the “teachings” of the bewildered -and I mean this kindly -such as yourself.
I have no truck with any religion because the evidence when examined, is preposterous. All my religious (for want of a better word) beliefs stem from that simple fact, there is evidence there that supports the view I now have. Your creed not only makes a mockery of thinking and basing a decision on the evidence gleaned not from one religion, but all of those that I can read about.
By your own rant, you believe in something that is not proven (and in my mind and those of many other thinking people, ludicrous,)
Comment by Jack Butler — May 26, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
Jack: why not try converse like an adult, I’m sure you can muster an argument without recourse to insult.
You say: ‘there is evidence there that supports the view I now have’ – what view do you NOW have, I take it it’s not religious? What is the support or evidence that you have for this view?
Comment by Mujaahid — May 26, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
There was a young man who went overseas to study for quite a long time. When he
returned, he asked his parents to find him a religious scholar or any expert who could
answer his 3 Questions.
Finally, his parents were able to find a Muslim scholar.
Young man: Who are you? Can you answer my questions?
Scholar: I am one of Allah (SubHana Wa Ta`ala )’s slaves and Insha-Allah
(God willing), I will be able to answer your questions.
Young man: Are you sure? A lot of Professors and experts were not able to answer my
questions.
Scholar: I will try my best, with the help of Allah( SubHana WaTa`ala).
Young Man: I have 3 questions: 1. Does God exist? If so, show me His shape.
2. What is taqdir (fate)?
3. If shaitan (Devil) was created from the fire, why at the end he will be thrown to hell
that is also created from fire. It certainly will not hurt him at all, since Shaitan (Devil) and
the hell were created from fire. Did God not think of it this far?
Suddenly, the Scholar slapped the young man’s face very hard.
Young man (feeling pain): Why do you get angry at me?
Scholar: I am not angry. The slap is my answer to your three questions.
Young Man: I really don’t understand.
Scholar: How do you feel after I slapped you?
Young Man: Of course, I felt the pain.
Scholar: So do you believe that pain exists?
Young Man: Yes.
Scholar: Show me the shape of the
pain!
Young Man: I cannot.
Scholar: That is my first answer. All of us feel God’s existence without being able to see
His shape… Last night, did you dream that you will be slapped by me?
Young Man: No.
Scholar: Did you ever think that you will get a slap from me today?
Young Man: No. Scholar: That is takdir (fate) my second answer…….. My hand that I
used to slap you, what is it created from?
Young Man: It is created from flesh.
Scholar: How about your face, what is it created from?
Young Man: Flesh.
Scholar: How do you feel after I slapped you?
Young Man: In pain.
Scholar: Thats it. This is my third answer, Even though Shaitan (Devil) and also the hell
were created from the fire, if Allah wants, insha-Allah (God willing), the hell will
become a very painful place for Shaitan
Comment by Mujaahid — May 26, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
Muj
you ask if I can converse like an adult in comment 140 than forward an infantile heap of ignorant bilge in comment 141.
With regard to insulting you, as far as I’m concerned that never happened. Should you perceive an insult to the farce that you consider your life’s guiding fatwa, that’s your problem -not mine.
You choose to answer criticisms of your ideas selectively and idiotically as there is no real answer to them.
I’ve done my bit and have shown the bankruptcy of the beliefs you promulgate, which are only copper-fastened by your abjectly silly and indeed childish retorts with no basis in fact.
Sleep tight and don’t let the bed-bugs bite.
Comment by Jack Butler — May 26, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
So your answer to this is, “You say: ‘there is evidence there that supports the view I now have’ – what view do you NOW have, I take it it’s not religious? What is the support or evidence that you have for this view?” …..evasion? That doesn’t display the certainty with which you dismiss religion at all and makes me wonder whether there is any real substance behind your rejection.
Are you suggesting that there really is no such thing as offense, that it’s completely subjective and can therefore be dismissed? I’d love to see you put that idea to the test. Go into a republican stronghold and sing ‘God save the Queen’ or better still a loyalist enclave and talk about all Ireland – put your hypothesis to the test, if your a man.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 27, 2009 @ 7:45 am
I notice Ol’ Muj has ducked out of any further “conversation” now. Guess he got tired.
BTW I really LOVED that slap-in-the-face story Muj. You’ve really convinced me that jislam is the right path because a deluded (?hate) preacher assaulted a young man who had some questions *rolleyes*
Comment by Matt O'Brien — May 27, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
The view I now have may be described by some as religious. I don’t have a problem with that,it’s only a name. However in the narrow sense, I have rejected what most people consider to be religion. Yes I dismiss all such religion having investigated it rather than mindlessly accept it.
Most atheists and agnostics arrived at their situation having thought long and hard about the issues. Unlike the adherents of most religions, atheists and agnostics were not born into it or forced into it under threat of death, imprisonment, torture or isolation. I rejected the religon I was brought up in (Catholicism) for a number of reasons, the main one being that the core beliefs are shown to be nonsensical. additionally the leaders of that religion, those that preached to me and others have shown themselves to be hypocrites and I could no longer believe a word they said (and yes, in a minor way I am one of their physical victims). That was the spur that caused me to investigate that and other religions, including the one you profess to follow.
They were ALL lying.
Even the “sacred scripture” of ALL religions I looked into, with the exceptions of atheism and agnosticism were self contradictory. I didn’t have to go outside the tenets of those books written by god to see from them that lies were being told, and those that persist in accepting the self-serving attempts by the discredited leadership to rationalise those inconsistencies (lies) are deluded.
why Muj have you rejected Christianity? Perhaps because of the inconsistencies?
Can you not see the very real inconsistencies in islam?…Its claim to be peaceful and the manner in which it is followed in most countries?
You ask “is there such a thing as offense”? “yes,” when hatred is vented against the person with the intent to physically harm, “No” when one chooses to take offense for the reason that one’s ideas are challenged. In other words, go after the person rather than the idea.
Muj, I have tried in this comment to explain in a non-threatening manner why I think that all unquestioning belief systems (including my own) can be evil where they are accepted in an unquestioning manner. I fail to understand how anyone who honestly questions any religion based on a god, can fail to realise that it’s all a load of bunkum, unless they are afraid to so do. Afraid of not surviving their death when death is a natural end that is not something to fear intellectually.
Now I realise I’ve gone on here a bit, but I’m trying to show, in a non threatening manner, that religion is probably the single biggest threat to peace on the Earth at present.
Having said that I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they wish, provided a) they do not attempt mo coerce either me or anybody else into that belief and b) they do not blackmail others by way of social exclusion, teaching of religion as part of everyday schooling etc into conformity.
On the basis of a) and b) above, all god-based religions I know of (including yours) fail the test
Comment by Jack Butler — May 27, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Ducked out, wasn’t it you who disappeared?
Compared to the treatment many young children received at the hands of Irishmen and women, this scholars example would be positively tame. But so you don’t embarrass yourself any further, go look up what a young man is in classic Arabic parlance.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 27, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
Jack Butler, Great post. That broadly tallies with my arrival at an atheist position. We had a very “enlightened” teacher for religion in first year in secondary who taught us about all religions, (Atheism or Agnosticism didn’t feature sadly) which gave me a thirst to find out more. I spent my teenage years reading about Christianity in all its forms, including gnosticism, and also Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Hare Krishna, Judaism and found no sense in any of it.
“religion is probably the single biggest threat to peace on the Earth at present”
I would dispute this. Its certainly a factor but I would put corporate greed at the top of the pile.
Comment by Marcas MacCaoimhín — May 28, 2009 @ 11:41 am
There is now a second thread for general discussion and comments here
General Discussion and Comments Part 2
If you continue your discussions within the newer thread, more new readers will see it.
Comment by Michael Nugent — May 28, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Jack: Thank you. You have demonstrated that you are very capable of engaging in civil dialogue and in this sense, we can continue our discussion. You have removed a barrier to understanding.
You said: [“why Muj have you rejected Christianity? Perhaps because of the inconsistencies?”] Correct, both Judaism and Christianity are replete with internal and external inconsistencies and that is indeed why I rejected them.
You said: [“Can you not see the very real inconsistencies in islam?…Its claim to be peaceful and the manner in which it is followed in most countries?”] This of course is an inconsistency of the people not the religion, and yes I’d agree very few Muslims adhere to the religion in the way they should.
[You ask “is there such a thing as offense”? “yes,” when hatred is vented against the person with the intent to physically harm, “No” when one chooses to take offense for the reason that one’s ideas are challenged. In other words, go after the person rather than the idea.]
That’s a very limited view of harm, surely you recognise that psychological harm can be as damaging. We legislate for all manner of harms that are not physically injurious. Does a person choose to be offended? Even if that were true, does that vindicate the right to be offensive? Should we now offend black people and retort, ‘well it’s their choice to be offended or not’.
[Muj, I have tried in this comment to explain in a non-threatening manner why I think that all unquestioning belief systems (including my own) can be evil where they are accepted in an unquestioning manner. ] Do you think it correct to assume that all people simply accept a belief system without investigation?
[I fail to understand how anyone who honestly questions any religion based on a god, can fail to realise that it’s all a load of bunkum, unless they are afraid to so do.] Afraid? Again Jack, could it not be simply that as believers we find the theories of origins based on speculative science simply unbelievable?
[Afraid of not surviving their death when death is a natural end that is not something to fear intellectually.] Again Jack you completely misunderstand the issue here. No true believer fears death, rather they embrace it seeing it as a release from the prison of this world. I put this to you, as Paul did to those who did not believe in his day, if all that is ahead of us is darkness then eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. However, as believers we believe that there is a hereafter, a recompense for this world and our time spent on it. If, according to you, we are wrong then we have still benefitted as our lifestyles have made us better people, living better lives. However if, as we wholeheartedly believe, we are right, then we have benefitted not only in this life, but also the next.
[Now I realise I’ve gone on here a bit, but I’m trying to show, in a non threatening manner, that religion is probably the single biggest threat to peace on the Earth at present.] Reality of course says otherwise. Stalin’s atheism that drove his pogroms saw more killed than ALL the religious wars in history combined.
[Having said that I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they wish, provided a) they do not attempt to coerce either me or anybody else into that belief and b) they do not blackmail others by way of social exclusion, teaching of religion as part of everyday schooling etc into conformity.] You can’t state that you have no problems with belief and then relegate it to the private sphere. You have no right to do that. Now, I believe some changes do need to occur to take into account non-believers, I do believe the current requirement to make an oath to a religion you do not follow is discriminatory and accordingly seek an amendment in that regard. Allah tells us, to you your religion, to me mine. Now that to me seems to be the way forward.
Comment by Mujaahid — May 28, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Очень понравился ваш блог! Подписался на rss. Буду регулярно читать.
Comment by Cefeprayede — July 2, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Can I just point out to Mujaahid, that religions are already protected in the discrimination act, as with race, gender, sexual orientation, marital status et al.
The reason we oppose this Blasphemy clause is because it is in a defamation bill. It does not make sense, to critise the content to the Bible or the Koran, then a religious follower gets offended, and can bring the offender to court. However the critism is related to the holy book, and neither the God(s) or the religion itself is defamed. It’s a gross waste of tax payers money.
There is nothing wrong with a critique be it for humour or philosophical reasons. Movies such as “The Last Temptation of Christ,” are understandably offensive, but does not serve great reason to be banned or have a fatwa issued against them in 2009.
Take the author Anne Rice, A fictional exploration of the Childhod of Christ (Christ the Lord; out of Egypt) where was lauded with praise by Christians, and an exploration of the relationship between God and Satan (Memnoch the Devil) casue outrage. I don’t see any difference
Comment by Steve — July 3, 2009 @ 11:58 am