Pakistan mob burns man to death for 'blasphemy'

There is no way you could go out in public with those ideas unless you really believed them. Their views are far from a gravy train to success.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see no basis whatsoever for that assertion.

And yet, they appear to be turning a tidy profit on their lawsuit strategy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess it's just a matter of opinion, but their persistence seems to me evidence of sincerity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with you to an extent. But history shows that it is not in human nature to tolerate oppression. If a people feels oppressed it is normal human behavior to band together and rise up against the oppressors. This has happened many times throughout history. The people put up with it for so long until they are pushed to their breaking point and say "enough is enough". Many governments have fallen as a result of the "peasants" refusing to take it anymore. If the people of Pakistan feel they are being forced into the Islamic way of life and it truly does bother them, then it is on them to rise up against it. If they continue to fight for the sake of the religion YOU think is being forced onto them, then one can only conclude that the majority of the people do not feel oppressed at all and love Islam. I can bet, and met plenty of them, there are Christians there who feel oppressed, but until their numbers increase and they band together they will only be able to flee or be careful not to break any laws. I committed blasphemy there many times in open public. But the police were never called on me. The majority of the people there do not flippantly call the police over blasphemy. The ones who usually do are those who have ulterior motives. Such as the person who supposedly blasphemed is a business competitor or refused to accept a marriage proposal. The blasphemy law is a law that is rarely enforced.

I don't doubt that you can give numerous examples of violent acts that happened in direct relation to religion. I can give as many examples that had nothing to do with religion.

 

It's an interesting question.

This is true in terms of relative morality. However, I do wonder if we could state that indeed, what they did was immoral. Done. If that's true, then it may be possible to determine which parts of the Bible, Qur'an etc... are immoral. We could theoretically eliminate those parts.

This is interesting.

So, blue is something all humans subjectively experience (assuming a normal functioning nervous system). Initially people just knew there was blue. They didn't know that blue was a wavelength of light. Incidentally, we don't have a photoreceptor for blue (488nm). We have a photoreceptor for violet and green and red and fill in the missing information as blue. So, blue is truly subjective. Due to it shading (according to Spidergoats link) it was verbally the same as green. But, whatever it is, it exists and it's purely an invention of our mind.

Yet, we ALL see blue.
We can do some objective tests that test for blue subjectivity.

What I wonder, is if there isn't some similar things going on in our mind for morality? If we look across all nations are there some similarities we can see is the blue of the morality world? I don't think there's any nation where you can just walk up to any child and harm them. This just wouldn't be normal. Why? We have different cultures, languages, histories, yet share this similarity. Doesn't that suggest "do not harm innocent people" might be an objective moral?

 

Look at it this way. rather than defining blue by the shade that you perceive when you look at it, define blue by the specific wavelength of light that produces it. It is very possible that if you saw the world by the way my brain interprets wavelengths that my blue may appear identical to your green but the wavelengths are absolute. Our interpretation, which can be like morals, may be different. Wavelengths are the scientifically measurable reality. The shade we see is the moralistic interpretation our brain makes of said reality.

There are plenty of nations that allow harming children btw. Ever hear of circumcision?

 

Yes, even spanking, but this is the thing - they don't see that as harming their children. But 'helping' them (in some odd convoluted logic) and protecting them. If you truly think that a God wants a part of your son's penis cut off, then cutting it off is saving your son's life. When a child get's close to a light socket you could sit down and explain to them it's dangerous, or smack them. Either way, you actually think you're helping them.

And that's the thing, perhaps we should look past the actions and only at the underlying motivation - which seems to be to help and protect children. THEN go back and look at the actions once we determine what the moral principle is. Then we can say: That action was immoral. This action is moral. Etc....




I don't think there's a nation on earth where you could grab a child from a mother and start walking off and not have the mother attack you to defend her off spring. And, other animals do this too. So, it's not even conscious per say. Hell, maybe consciousness IS the problem .... I mean, when you start justifying the cutting of penises off children, I'd argue that such a brain might actually be damaged and no longer "see" color / act morally. If you damage your vision, for you, there is no more color. Perhaps certain religious memes damage the moral part of the brain? No more morality?

Sticking a needle into the retina will destroy vision. Sticking a needle into the frontal lobe can destroy morality (in some people - not all). Defending children, for a normal human, seems to be, somewhat, innate. Like seeing color. To stop a human from defending children you need years and years of psychological damage inflicted against the brain to get it to "think" harming children is "good". Like sticking a needle into the retina. Normal function is lost. Or burning a mentally handicap man.

 

Do you see how you have already answered your question? Morality is in the eye of the beholder. It is determined by how we interpret reality. A mother may believe she is helping her child by cutting off his foreskin. But if the child could speak for himself, he would likely scream, "mommy no! don't let them cut my pee pee!" and he would wonder why his parents would allow someone to hurt him. Harm is also defined subjectively. I consider it harmful to keep my daughter locked up away from boys. Her father thinks it is harmful to allow her to date and make her own decisions. We obviously disagree and my daughter is glad she lives with me and not him.

The term "harm" is linked to "morality". Both are subjective. You are trying to determine the difference between justifiable homicide and murder. Both are killing but they differ only in motivation. If there were an absolute morality, motivation would likely have nothing to do with it. But there isn't an absolute morality. Every human being decides for themselves what is moral and what is not based on the desired outcome they hope to achieve. Basically if the end justifies the means then it is moral. And for no two humans will this always be the same. Therefore, morality is always subjective.

 

religion always brings out the worst in Humanity and always will

 

I don't disagree that something is subjective. Blue is subjective. However there must be a brain to create that subjectivity in itself. The brain is objective. The circuitry in the brain is objective. The chemistry that drive the neurocircuity and creates the blue is objective.

Ourside of our subjective blue exists a real world with a real wavelength of real light. That is objective.


So, the outside is objective. The brain is objective. BUT the blueness we experience is subjective. That much I think we all agree on? What do you say up to this point?



Is morality then ONLY experienced? Could we say that the morality inside these men's minds was subjective and hence we'll never know anything about it (well, not yet anyway). However, we can observe their actions. Those are objective. Now I wonder if the actions are moral or the feelings inside these men's minds are what is moral. The actions are objectively real. Do they represent the morality or is the morality only what's in the minds of the men? If they represent morality, then much like the 488nm we have something we can measure. We also have brains and chemistry. That can be measured.

Perhaps we can never know what it is to experience subjective morality but we can, by describing actions and investigating brains, still possible to develop objective morality of actions?


Almost all humans see color. On a Gaussian distribution of normal perception I think BLUE could easily be identified to an alpha of 0.01 error. The same is true of the fear of death. I suppose along this route we come to the Golden Rule. Ha! Kind of full circle. If the Golden Rule is objectively true then what these men did was objective immoral.

 

Tragicomically, this goes for those who identify themselves as religious as well as those who identify themselves as non-religious.

Which suggests that the actual intention behind the hatred is not religious.

Haters are going to hate - whether they are religious or not.

 

There are varying degrees of psychopathy, of course. All of them are an aberration, none of which are "throwbacks" to past states, unless that state is--perhaps--that of some reptilian that saw every animal as a tool, food or sex. Psychopathy is characterized by a lack of empathy (amongst some other things, depending on the individual). A psychopath knows that what he/she is doing is wrong (they aren't "insane"), they just don't feel any empathetic sensation when they do harm. A psychopath can feel pain, happiness, sadness and whatnot, they just lack the ability to feel it for others.

Bingo.

~String

 

Morality is only in our minds. So it is subjective. Actions are objective. They are events that can be determined as fact to have happened or not. Morality is the meaning we apply to those actions. If there was absolute objective morality then everything that happens in the universe would be moral or immoral. Is it immoral for an asteroid to hit a planet? NO. It is just something that happens. Morality is something that is a psychological construct of the human mind. That is why it is only applied to the actions of humans. We don't generally apply laws of morality to animals. If a pit bull kills a child we don't say the dog committed an immoral act. We say he did what pit bulls do. Then we in turn do what humans do and more likely than not kill the dog. Most people do not have a moral dilemma over that though PETA would give you a run for your money. Morality is something most people attribute to the existence of a soul. I rarely hear atheists say something is moral or immoral. The term morality implies a spiritual existence. Most atheists prefer the word "ethical" or "unethical" because it more accurately describes how we see things. Ethical meaning the action and its outcome is preferred by the majority of those who it would affect. Very close to being morality but not exactly the same connotation. I know I know semantics. The thing is, ethical is still mostly subjective but because it applies to the preferences of majority of people in general rather than a relatively small group who bases their preferences on the whims of a deity they invented, it has the potential to be more objective.

Point is, if morality is objective, then all things that happen, all actions taken by any living thing or inanimate object would be subject to laws of morality. But since those are interpreted and defined by whims of people, they cannot be defined as objective constants. Morality is redefined with every generation and subculture. Remember when it was considered immoral to have sex before marriage. Not true anymore. It used to be immoral to be a single mother. The majority of people, in the USA anyway, would say it is not immoral though possibly unwise or inconvenient.

 

This is only possible where sufficient numbers make it possible, and where the opinion of the majority is not sufficiently antipathic to turn it into a civil war. The Copts could not rise up, because they would be massacred. This is an outgrowth of religious hegemony. It's not always a question of whether the believers feel oppressed; it's also what they do to other people.

 

Exactly, thank you for making my point even without seeing it yourself. When a group feels oppressed they do what they can to seek each other out and they even deflect or fight. Our American ancestors deflected and then fought. Not because they were without faith or even fighting against a religion they didn't agree with. They just didn't want to be told HOW to worship. Uprisings don't always work, of course. But it is still on the oppressed to at least make it known that they feel oppressed so that they can get help. But you don't hear any outcries of oppression coming from Pakistan. At least not loud ones. And even then it is falling on deaf ears because the US government has bigger fish to fry. As long as Pakistan is an ally to us we will not interfere. Also if the people aren't making an effort on their own then we cannot go in with guns blazing, unless they have oil we need. The us government is not exactly famous for caring about the oppression of people in other countries. Look at ww2. US turned a blind eye to the pain of the Jews for most of the war. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor was attacked that we got involved. The people didn't want to go to war. They didn't care about the Jews. It is human nature to not care about those you are not directly associated with. Even on this board we can all bitch and moan about the atrocities of the world but very few of us would be willing to put our lives on the line to do anything about it. Sure we have some military vets on here. but without the backing of the US military would you go over and do anything to help the people of the world? I doubt it. A select few may and they will likely meet a horrific end if they do.

What I am trying to say is that we act according to our nature in spite of religion. We cherry pick the parts that make us feel good and make up the rest. Those people burned that guy because they wanted him dead, their faith simply absolved them of the feeling of guilt that was sure to follow. That has been the purpose of religion since it began. To absolve people of the feeling of guilt they get when they act on their true animalistic nature.

 

I agree. It brings out or legitimizes what is already there, legalizes it within the faithful's mind. But it does not create our dark side. It only brings out what is already there.

 

Calm yourself down. It's not appropriate to assert that I haven't seen your issue merely because I disagree with you.

I do see your argument quite clearly; but you do not see that it is not merely a question of making the decision to rebel. How will you rebel, if you are the minority and the majority not merely disagrees with you or is ambivalent, but is actively hostile? It is normal instinct to rebel against oppressors, but it is not possible where neither demography nor power is on your side. Or, rather, it is not possible to be successful, as you note.

It's fine for the oppressed to make it known that they feel oppressed: and what then? What if no help is coming, as you allude to regarding minorities in Pakistan?

I understand your point but disagree. There would have been no reason to harm this man, save that he transgressed an arbitrary law about an imaginary sky-daddy. The scripts we write determine how the play is going to go. With a nicer script, you get a nicer but more boring play. I don't believe in the sensation of guilt without there having been a greater law that was transgressed. And if their faith absolved them of the guilt that was sure to follow, it still stands that it's somewhat culpable in all this.

 

I think this is true to some degree, and Seagypsy has made this point too. There probably are some people who either love to hate or they love violence and are drawn to violent ideologies or violent interpretations to justify what they would have done anyway. But I don't think it's so black and white. Some ideologies do cause irrational hatred and violence in some circumstances.

 

I apologize. I misunderstood where you were coming from. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I agree with you that a rational person from our standpoint would see no reason to harm the guy. But these are a people who are very attached to their traditions and the world around them is telling them they are out dated. The internet and cable tv are infiltrating their homes and telling their children that life can be different. The elders of the society are fighting desperately to maintain the loyalty of their youth. They believe the Qur'an justifies their traditions and since science and modern outside opinion are against them, they have only the belief in Allah and the hellfire with which to punish transgressors to justify their actions and convince their youth to comply. For anyone to be allowed to speak ill of it or burn it sends a message to the youth that Allah is a push over and not to be feared. They "need" harsh punishment for blasphemy in order to scare the youth into compliance. If the blasphemer doesn't die, then Allah may be perceived as a pussy(pardon my language).

You may have a neighbor that you know little about and care very little what they think of you, but if they started telling all your neighbors that you stank or that you were a bad parent or a child molester. You would likely confront them on it in a way that all your neighbors would be very aware that you were challenging him. To not confront them on it in such a way may leave you wondering if the other neighbors believe what he says. If people start thinking you are a bad parent or child molester they may start treating you differently or even run you out of the neighborhood. It's not that you care what one individual thinks, its that his actions can affect what many people think of you. And if your reputation is ruined you may not be able to live as peacefully as you are accustomed to living.

Sometimes, whistle blowers take down an entire operation. Some organizations are so ruthless that no one would dare blow a whistle. This guy, was a whistle blower and they dealt with him in a way that would send a message to anyone else who decides to challenge the faith. Even though the Qur'an forbids it.

What would happen to someone trying to spit on the US constitution and American. Even a copy of it. If he went and did this publicly, sure there are laws protecting his right to do so. But how much do you want to bet he wouldn't at the very least get very serious death threats. The constitution and flag represent who we are as a people. To destroy our symbols is taken as a threat against what it represents. Muslims see the Qur'an the same way. To destroy it is an attack on the people who love it and live it. So for one of their own to burn it is like treason. I believe in the USA an act of treason is punishable by death. I could be wrong.

Guilt is something we are taught by our parents. Think about a little kid who squishes a mouse in his hands and giggles when the eyes pop out. Then mom freaks out and tells he what he did was bad. He then feels guilt because his mother taught him to feel guilty. Guilt is a result of disappointing those we care about who's opinion of us matters. The invention of a sky daddy creates source of guilt and a source legitimacy. The creators of the deity make the rules and say that God said so. We are supposed to feel guilty of sin. But for those situations when our nature cannot be avoided the same deity absolves us of guilt by saying it is divine commandment that we break the very rules that have been put into place by the deity. "Though shalt not kill "(most human beings don't want to kill because they don't want to be killed) however "kill all those that oppose me".... people don't like anything to threaten what they view as the thing that holds them together in peace. Human nature constantly contradicts itself. Religion is a creation of the human mind to justify and legitimize these natural contradictions. Humans are screwy in the head, the sooner we can see that humans are nut jobs that make no sense, the sooner it will start to make perfect sense. Religion is a scape goat for the true psychotic nature of humanity.