Palestinian facing life in jail for Blasphemy..

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,160
Palestinian held for Facebook criticism of Islam - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

But they really should have their own state. Honestly.

Many in this conservative Muslim town say that isn't enough, and suggested he should be killed for renouncing Islam. Even family members say he should remain behind bars for life.

"He should be burned to death," said Abdul-Latif Dahoud, a 35-year-old Qalqiliya resident. The execution should take place in public "to be an example to others," he added.
He insulted Islam on Facebook. Instead of just ignoring it he is facing life in jail. This sort of primitiveness is to be expected in some parts of the world controlled by adherents of the "religion of peace" but had heard it said that the West Bank was that bit more liberal seems not.
 


Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
Hundreds of Palestinians are held for no reason in Israeli jails... Some of them children and they have complained of torture and even child sexual abuse.

Abuse of Palestinian children in Israeli jails :: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dal medio oriente :: information from middle east :: [vs-1]

In 2009, a report from the UK-based children's rights group Defence for Children International found, there were 305 Palestinian children being held in Israeli jails. The US-based NGO Save the Children further estimates, that over 6,700 children were arrested between October 2000 and April 2009. Both organizations confirm Israel routinely prosecutes Palestinian children as young as 12, describing the ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children as "widespread, systematic and institutionalised."
Should Israel have a state?

Insulting Islam may seem a ridiculous offence to secular people in general and non-muslims in particular (and me, to be blunt) but it is more of an offence than those kidnapped and imprisoned using so-called 'administrative detention' for which no reason is ever even implied.

Israel often never even investigates any allegations made by Palestinians against it's security forces but even if they do there are never any convictions, even that soldier who emptied his magazine into a 13 year old girl got off scot free.

I hope all things are sorted justly (strains of 'Imagine' coming through.... i know) and people are free from persecution for their expressions made about religion and that peoples are free and granted their full rights when living near fascist neighbouring states.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,160
Israel often never even investigates any allegations made by Palestinians against it's security forces but even if they do there are never any convictions, even that soldier who emptied his magazine into a 13 year old girl got off scot free.
.
Stay on topic. Do you think blasphemy should be an offense?
 

jam_mac_jam

Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
70
Hundreds of Palestinians are held for no reason in Israeli jails... Some of them children and they have complained of torture and even child sexual abuse.

Abuse of Palestinian children in Israeli jails :: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dal medio oriente :: information from middle east :: [vs-1]



Should Israel have a state?

Insulting Islam may seem a ridiculous offence to secular people in general and non-muslims in particular (and me, to be blunt) but it is more of an offence than those kidnapped and imprisoned using so-called 'administrative detention' for which no reason is ever even implied.

Israel often never even investigates any allegations made by Palestinians against it's security forces but even if they do there are never any convictions, even that soldier who emptied his magazine into a 13 year old girl got off scot free.

I hope all things are sorted justly (strains of 'Imagine' coming through.... i know) and people are free from persecution for their expressions made about religion and that peoples are free and granted their full rights when living near fascist neighbouring states.
Oh well that's ok then once Israel is jailing people then this is fine for the Palestinians to do. Move along.
 

typical

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
575
But they really should have their own state. Honestly.


This sort of primitiveness is to be expected in some parts of the world controlled by adherents of the "religion of peace" but had heard it said that the West Bank was that bit more liberal seems not.
Can you explain how is it primitive, exactly?

You live in a state that routinely imprisons people on the basis of moral legislature. Blasphemy is illegal on exactly the same basis that drug possession or prostitution.

Most countries have some form of moral legislation, the fact that you disagree with theirs hardly makes it primitive.
 

Malboury

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
368
Can you explain how is it primitive, exactly?

You live in a state that routinely imprisons people on the basis of moral legislature. Blasphemy is illegal on exactly the same basis that drug possession or prostitution.

Most countries have some form of moral legislation, the fact that you disagree with theirs hardly makes it primitive.
No, I'm afraid you're mistaken there. It's primitive not based on the means of implementation of laws against it, but rather because punishing people for their religious views is a primitive practice.
 

Green eyed monster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,429
Stay on topic. Do you think blasphemy should be an offense?
I am on topic, i said no. In a similiar mood i don't think anybody should be forced to swear allegiance to 'A Jewish State' either.

Nor should Israeli police be operating a sort of 'religious police' of their own, coordinating with vigilante groups to break up Mixed-religious couples in Israel...

Israel's vile anti-miscegenation squads | Seth Freedman | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

[David's] group, which works with police, goes by several names, including Fire for Judaism, is composed of up to 45 men and funded by private donations. Members say they are fighting a 'growing epidemic' of Arab-Jewish dating and spend as many hours as they can on patrol.

Similar groups have formed across the country ... In Pisgat Ze'ev, the growing number of Arab-Jewish couples is seen as the result of more Jewish settlements in Arab east Jerusalem.
 

jam_mac_jam

Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
70
I am on topic, i said no. In a similiar mood i don't think anybody should be forced to swear allegiance to 'A Jewish State' either.

Nor should Israeli police be operating a sort of 'religious police' of their own, coordinating with vigilante groups to break up Mixed-religious couples in Israel...

Israel's vile anti-miscegenation squads | Seth Freedman | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
No, it shouldnt. And people in China should have freedom of religion as well, and back to the original point....
 

typical

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
575
No, I'm afraid you're mistaken there. It's primitive not based on the means of implementation of laws against it, but rather because punishing people for their religious views is a primitive practice.
So if you punish people for their moral views, that's okay, but if you call it a religious view then the same punishment is primative? So if I say I worship god with coke and hooker binges every Saturday night, our enlightened government should leave me be?

Inventing a difference between morality and religion is just a way to salve the conscience, unless you can prove there is a god and a certain range of ways to worship it.
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,400
Can you explain how is it primitive, exactly?

You live in a state that routinely imprisons people on the basis of moral legislature. Blasphemy is illegal on exactly the same basis that drug possession or prostitution.

Most countries have some form of moral legislation, the fact that you disagree with theirs hardly makes it primitive.
Not allowing freedom of religious belief and/or freedom of expression is primitive. Also, laws should not be made on the basis of morality. Immorality should not be criminalized, as such.
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,400
So if you punish people for their moral views, that's okay, but if you call it a religious view then the same punishment is primative? So if I say I worship god with coke and hooker binges every Saturday night, our enlightened government should leave me be?

Inventing a difference between morality and religion is just a way to salve the conscience, unless you can prove there is a god and a certain range of ways to worship it.
The law should not punish one for one's moral views either.

(As a by the way, drugs and prostitution should be legalized, regulated and taxed.)
 

typical

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
575
Not allowing freedom of religious belief and/or freedom of expression is primitive. Also, laws should not be made on the basis of morality. Immorality should not be criminalized, as such.
My point is, it's not primitive, as in less well developed.

Morality shouldn't be legislated but it is. Calling one particular moral law primitive and suggesting that people don't deserve the right to self determination based of their morality is a very degrading thing to say, IMO. We should say that moral laws are wrong but we should also recognize the plank in our own eye before bitching about a splinter in Palistien.
 

mazzington

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
378
This sort of primitiveness is to be expected in some parts of the world controlled by adherents of the "religion of peace" but had heard it said that the West Bank was that bit more liberal seems not.
Indeed, tis a pity Israel worked so purposefully to create the environment in which such religious lunatics thrive. Sickening to think that Israel did so much to set Hamas up as the de-facto opposition to Fata. Doesn't excuse the lunatics themselves, but is it any surprise these Islamists thrive in the places they do?
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,400
My point is, it's not primitive, as in less well developed.

Morality shouldn't be legislated but it is. Calling one particular moral law primitive and suggesting that people don't deserve the right to self determination based of their morality is a very degrading thing to say, IMO. We should say that moral laws are wrong but we should also recognize the plank in our own eye before bitching about a splinter in Palistien.
Are you arguing that a state that does not have freedom of religion or freedom of expression is as well developed as one that does have both of those freedoms?

I haven't sought to deny anyone their right to self-determination and think that they should have it, but it is then up to them whether or not they wish to live by civilized standards or not. They shouldn't be surprised that when they fail to have civilized standards that it invites negative comment.

I also haven't said that moral laws are wrong, just that they should have no bearing on the law.
 

Malboury

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
368
So if you punish people for their moral views, that's okay, but if you call it a religious view then the same punishment is primative? So if I say I worship god with coke and hooker binges every Saturday night, our enlightened government should leave me be?

Inventing a difference between morality and religion is just a way to salve the conscience, unless you can prove there is a god and a certain range of ways to worship it.
It's not okay to punish people for any views they may hold. Rather, we collectively produce laws based on our own values that punish actions rather than views. It's okay that you want to have coke and hooker binges on Saturdays, no one says you should be legally punished for that view. Now if you put it into practice, you might find that there are laws against those actions. Personally I'd leave you to it though, so long as you didn't harm anyone but yourself.
I think that separating morality from religion is actually something that people who don't believe in God do, to be honest. Can't see why you'd say you need to believe in a God with certain values to hold morals not derived form a God. Quite the opposite, surely?
 

typical

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
575
Are you arguing that a state that does not have freedom of religion or freedom of expression is as well developed as one that does have both of those freedoms?
Freedom is a misnomer in this context. We have freedom of religion so long as our religious beliefs don't conflict with any laws. We have freedom of expression so long as that expression doesn't conflict with any laws. The word "freedom" doesn't actually apply.

I haven't sought to deny anyone their right to self-determination and think that they should have it, but it is then up to them whether or not they wish to live by civilized standards or not.
If you define civilization based on superior morality, I don't see any logical basis why it would apply in this case. They have a different arbitrary basis for their beliefs but they apply them in the same way. Who is more civilized?
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
I am on topic, i said no. In a similiar mood i don't think anybody should be forced to swear allegiance to 'A Jewish State' either.

Nor should Israeli police be operating a sort of 'religious police' of their own, coordinating with vigilante groups to break up Mixed-religious couples in Israel...

Israel's vile anti-miscegenation squads | Seth Freedman | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Please this is not a debate that has anything to do with Israel, please stay on topic. This is a freedom of speech issue not a rights and wrongs of the Israel / Palestine conflicts thread.
 

typical

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
575
It's not okay to punish people for any views they may hold. Rather, we collectively produce laws based on our own values that punish actions rather than views.
Equally, it is okay for that guy to not believe in the truth of Islam any longer but he is being punished for the public act of denunciation. He's being punished for his actions.

I think that separating morality from religion is actually something that people who don't believe in God do, to be honest. Can't see why you'd say you need to believe in a God with certain values to hold morals not derived form a God. Quite the opposite, surely?
I'm saying that morals derived from god should not be held above the morals you derive your own powers of reason. Religious practice and belief should not be held above personal moral beliefs, so freedom of religion should not be more important than freedom to act within your own morality. They're the same thing in my book.
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
Freedom of speech is one of the most important human rights on this planet. Any faction that seeks to limit freedom of speech is committing a crime against humanity.

All people should have the right to express their religious beliefs as they see fit within the boundary that it does not physically harm or restrain the freedom of others who do not share the same beliefs.

Limiting freedom of speech actually has a counter effect to what those who limit it seek to achieve. It defers all debate on important issues in a public setting, and gives opportunity to those with extreme views to propagate them in private without being challenged by expert authority.

We in Ireland recently introduced a blasphemy law which is utterly abhorrent to anyone who seeks freedom of speech. One man’s blasphemy is another man’s belief. Any state, regime or entity who seeks to limit freedom of speech on religious issues should be condemned for it without hesitation.

To quote a wise man, “who am I to condemn my brother for taking comfort in a shrine”, and I would add who am I to condemn him for not taking comfort in it either.
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,400
Freedom is a misnomer in this context. We have freedom of religion so long as our religious beliefs don't conflict with any laws. We have freedom of expression so long as that expression doesn't conflict with any laws. The word "freedom" doesn't actually apply.
One should be free to practice one's religion up the point where it causes harm to another or interferes with another similar freedom. This similarly should apply to freedom of expression. These limits seem reasonable.

If you define civilization based on superior morality, I don't see any logical basis why it would apply in this case. They have a different arbitrary basis for their beliefs but they apply them in the same way. Who is more civilized?
Why do you keep bringing morality into this? It ought to have nothing to do with the laws of a state. And no, I don't define civilization solely on that basis. It is far more complex.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top