ECHR, Mohamed and Christianity


yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,776
ECHR twisted logic: You can insult Christian but not Muslim religion — RT Op-ed

I spent a fair bit of time searching for the earlier thread on the Belgian or Austrian lady who was forbidden by the European Court of Human Rights from calling Mohammed a paedophile. I had no luck.
But here is an interesting article from the Rooskies: A comparison between how critics of Islam are treated by the ECHR and the critics of Christianity.

Mods, my fullest understanding if you want to merge.

It seems that the learned judges used the risk of a violent reaction in coming to their verdict of forbidding the unfavourable Islamic comment.
 

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,776
Already a thread

[url="https://www.politics.ie/showthread.php?267690

Thank you Shuhart, I had scoured the site for the word "Muhammed" or Mohammed but couldn't find it. I'll leave it to the mods to merge. But the linked article does add something.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,136
Bullsh1t article.

One party was convinced under blasphemy law, one as hooligans.

Apples. Oranges.
 

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,776
I don't think you've thought very deeply over this one.
Blasphemy means acting or saying things about a "god" or deity that a believer will find offensive. There are several ways of doing htis
The Austrian lady was using Islamic sources ... to show that Mohommed married a young pre-teenage girl and deduced from this that he was a paedophile. -- going on the Islamic sources.
The Pussy riots were accused of pretty much the same offense against Our Lady. But not in any intellectual, logical argument... it was just by their dress and dance and such... Yes it might be classed as hooliganism if it makes you feel better, but disrespectful, offensive and perhaps blasphemous too. The Christian West doesn't take offense these days.... The Orthodox East may be a different matter. Islam, of course is in a completely different ball-park.

Asia Bibi Blasphemy Case: Asia Bibi, Pakistan Christian, Still In Jail A Week After Acquittal In Blasphemy Case
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,079
Twitter
No
//

A comparison between how critics of Islam are treated by the ECHR and the critics of Christianity.

//.

Dunno, it sounded more like a crass attack on mahomet because of his young wife, rather than on the religion. Judgeing a man of the 600s by our standards is not helpful to anyone.

Mahomet probably had slaves, certainly his followers did, and we europeans did until about 200 years ago. It was normal.

My aunt the nun is convinced she is married to Jesus. No she isn't. If I told her he was married to mary magdalene, she would be insulted. She has a deal with him.

So I'm not a fan of islam, or religions, but the ECHR got it right. If we allow religions, and encourage them with tax breaks, when we know it's delusional, what can we expect?
 

Shpake

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
5,374
Great that you can present an argument respectfully. Not like some of the other yobos who populate this site.
But I'd recommend you read the link I gave
ECHR twisted logic: You can insult Christian but not Muslim religion — RT Op-ed
Here's just a sample of it:
The double standards are all the more shocking because Frau S. was discussing facts. The Austrian courts ruled that the fact that Mohammed had married a small girl, and consummated that marriage when the girl was nine, did not justify her calling him a pedophile. By contrast, there are no facts at issue in the Pussy Riot case, whose action in the cathedral was purely designed to shock. In other words, the intentionality of the Pussy Riot girls cannot be in doubt, whereas it requires a speculative leap about her motives to say that Frau S. was deliberately trying to incite hatred.
I'm no expert on Islamic scholastic. It must be written somehere, either in the Koran or one of the other texts from the 6th century.. but Marrying a girl and consumating the marriage when she was nine years old... I can only take one interpretation out of that. Especially because this is the compass, job-control-language by which mankind is supposed to live.

At the moment the law says that carnal knowledge with a female of less than 18 years old is statutary rape.
I find mature women more attractive, myself. But I was always struck by how arbitrary the 18 year rule is. Particulary as in Ireland it used to be 15 or 16 not so long ago. But I believe being married to the lady had a big legal bearing on the matter.

Back in those days, life expectancy was about 30 years. So females married with the onset of puberty. The survival of the tribe/community depended on expanding numbers...
Nowadays in the West, females marry once they have their PHD, 24% of UK babies are aborted... It's a different scene.

But I am struck by the arguments in the article that the judges seemed to have allowed themselves to be swayed by the "imperative" of preserving the peace between religions.
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,845
But I am struck by the arguments in the article that the judges seemed to have allowed themselves to be swayed by the "imperative" of preserving the peace between religions.
I think this is the point. The point at issue isn't particularly about the fact that Islamic texts state that Mohammed did this, and other things. Nor is it whether these things have a different moral value today (on which point, can I say defenders of the ECHR seem confused in their arguments - do they want to say it didn't happen, or it did happen but the example of Mohammed's life isn't a guide to base current behaviour on.)

The point, as said in the article, is
In other words, the court is failing in its primordial role, which is surely to uphold the right of speech against threats of violence against them.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,136
I don't think you've thought very deeply over this one.
Blasphemy means acting or saying things about a "god" or deity that a believer will find offensive. There are several ways of doing htis
The Austrian lady was using Islamic sources ... to show that Mohommed married a young pre-teenage girl and deduced from this that he was a paedophile. -- going on the Islamic sources.
The Pussy riots were accused of pretty much the same offense against Our Lady. But not in any intellectual, logical argument... it was just by their dress and dance and such... Yes it might be classed as hooliganism if it makes you feel better, but disrespectful, offensive and perhaps blasphemous too. The Christian West doesn't take offense these days.... The Orthodox East may be a different matter. Islam, of course is in a completely different ball-park.

Asia Bibi Blasphemy Case: Asia Bibi, Pakistan Christian, Still In Jail A Week After Acquittal In Blasphemy Case
Perhaps...

The ECHR rules on how the law was applied, correctly in Austria, not in Russia. They offered no opinion on tbe acts.

You are reaching here.
 

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,776
I think you are missing it.
the pussy riot gang were behaving disrespectfully in a church towards the blessed virgin. Dancing around and such-like.
This Austrian lady was making some logical argument based on historical texts.
I'd agree that how one says some things can get people just as upset as what one says.
For instance, it would appear that Jesus and Saint Paul accepted slavery.
Modern translations use the word servant rather than slave.
so it sounds more palatable.
Likewise there are parables where (it seems ) that torture is accepted... for not wearing the correct garment to a feast.
But Would the ECHR have me arrested and imprisoned/fined for saying this.
This is what freedom of speech is all about.
Likewise if the ancient texts say that Muhammed consumated his marriage to Aisha? when she was 9 years old?
If that is what the text says... ?
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,845

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,776
And that's what it says, many times:

[url="https://sunnah.com/search/aisha
I'm trying to be tolerant and generous in my judgement here.
I'm by no means some figure of virtue or sainthood... but it has always been a puzzle to me how someone would be sexually attracted to a child. As witnessed by the flood of complaints in the media of late... RC Church, BBC etc. I myself always found full-grown women attractive...
However, I can recall seeing this RTE docu on the Poll na mBrón cromlech down in Co Clare.
They found that six men and seven women were buried there from way back in the stone-age. None were older than thirty. That was the average life expectancy back then.
That got me thinking. If they brought children into the world, then it would have to be at the age of 14 or 15. Other wise the children would end up as some sort of Orphans. It was a matter of the survival of the tribe and community to marry young.

So this statutary age of consent at 18 doesn't make a lot of sense at one level... But I can see the logic behind it. You have to have the emotional security to care for a child.
But Muhammad... and Aisha... at the age of 9...?
 

Schuhart

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
4,845
But Muhammad... and Aisha... at the age of 9...?
For my part, I'm happy for folk to interpret the information whatever way they like.

So we can say these Islamic texts are so wrong we can't rely on them for anything. Which causes a problem for Islam, as those texts are essential for making sense of the Koran.

Alternatively, we can say that Mohammed's behaviour was OK for the time, but he isn't relevant as a role model for modern life. Which also causes a problem for Islam.

Or someone can judge the facts by standards they feel to be fundamental.

Or true believers can concoct a tale that might work for them, even if its unconvincing for everyone else.

That's all fine. What's a problem is the ECHR denying the right to state the facts as recorded in those texts, and draw a not unreasonable conclusion from those facts.

When they should be a voice that defends the right to speak, when threatened by violence.
 

yosef shompeter

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
2,776
For my part, I'm happy for folk to interpret the information whatever way they like.

So we can say these Islamic texts are so wrong we can't rely on them for anything. Which causes a problem for Islam, as those texts are essential for making sense of the Koran.

Alternatively, we can say that Mohammed's behaviour was OK for the time, but he isn't relevant as a role model for modern life. Which also causes a problem for Islam.

Or someone can judge the facts by standards they feel to be fundamental.

Or true believers can concoct a tale that might work for them, even if its unconvincing for everyone else.

That's all fine. What's a problem is the ECHR denying the right to state the facts as recorded in those texts, and draw a not unreasonable conclusion from those facts.

When they should be a voice that defends the right to speak, when threatened by violence.
I'd go along with that 100%.
That's what freedom of expression is all about. As a matter of fact the pussy riot incident is something I find much more offensive... Of course they would rightly reply that the way women have been treated by the Churches deserves some reply and some disrespect.
Yes we have a problem. Not only with the self righteous eastern religions, but with the judges too.
 
Top