Update: Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy

No SAM, what is SAD is the millions upon MILLION of people from Pakistan who fully support these sick laws. This has nothing to do with the USA - it's a product of Islamic ideology.

The very concept "Kafir" is itself SICK IN THE HEAD.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, and pretty obviously so.

But there's lots more evidence. For example, from your own link to the Times of India:

That right there is nothing other than overt bigotry based on religious superstition.

Here we note that an entire mob is willing to pursue violence based on such bigotry, and is powerful enough to compell the local authorities to pursue their grievance via the courts. So this is not a matter of some lone nut.

The very fact that such a law could even get onto the books is damning evidence of widespread religious bigotry - and that such law was a populist measure by a dictator only strengthens that conclusion.

Which amounts to official aknowledgement that such bigotry is widespread and severe enough to constitute "intense pressure" at the local level, including organized gatherings aimed at pressuring judges. It is a salient, systemic factor of Pakistani politics and social relations. Obviously: Islamic supremacy is by definition at the heart of any Islamic state. This is what enshrining a state religion amounts to.

So we note that said bigotry is widespread and reliable enough to be exploited more-or-less at will. Need an angry, violent mob? Just cook up some sexy blasphemy accusations, and away you go.

And then there's the assassination of Salmaan Taseer over his criticism of said blasphemy law - apparently opposing such is enough to get a politician killed in Pakistan, even by his own security detail.

Quite frankly, the supposition that a nation build on overtly religious identity would not feature major, systemic religious bigotry is absurd on its face.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's amazing the level to which people will go to justify just about anything.

Just to clarify: Ms. Bibi wasn't attacked because she was mouthing their vittles, or drooling in their water. She wasn't attacked because she spat on anything, or engaged - God help us - in unasked-for "communal eating". She was attacked because she dared to touch or drink from the same water source that her non-kaffir neighbours drank from. She wasn't horking up loogies in the well, but rather daring to use their water source, much as - and Michael has expressed this quite well - a black person using a 'whites-only' fountain in the 1940's. Did this group attack each other for mouthing all over their water bottle, in an allegory to the insanely absurd parallel Bells attempts to finger-paint out? No. Why not? Is it a mystery?

More generally, is this point really too subtle? Is it possible that it can really escape the comprehension of both Bells and Sam, let alone Chi? Really? Wow.

Same issue: who is "they" who condemned it as a whole? What constitutes this whole? And so forth.

I think I would first ask if the speaker - me - called my religion that, or whether, in fact, he called discriminatory religious laws "constructed of cleverly sculpted shit". By the by, the phrase was "constructed of cleverly sculpted shit", not "constructed by cleverly sculpted shit". The first implies the laws are shitty, the latter - which you wrote - that the people are. Subtle difference, Bells. Learn it.

Yes indeed. I thought you'd probably at least grazed the thread, rather than been out with apparently major medical problems. I was curious at the time to see whether you would condemn such a statement. You did not, which I expected.

Because of ongoing and continued personal libels.

My intention was to isolate an instance where you could refute my accusations of hypocrisy. You failed.

There was no point in further quotation at this point, since the remainder of Bells assertions are, much as the above ones, flawed or outright falsehoods. There was more nonsensical hand-waving about some hypothetical water-and-beggar scenario, as if that was what the OP issue was about; for it to have made the slightest sense, one would have to opine that Bells thinks either Christians or Westerners are terribly filthy and disease-ridden. I initially assumed this was wrong, but her near-farcical statements leave the matter very ambigous.

Let it stand thus, as it has: Bells either fails to understand, or fails to care about the OP issue, or about anyone's biases save those people she identifies as enemies of her malign thought process. This is not an opinion. This is an objective fact, and not worth debating any further at this point. My suspicions appear to be more or less correct, and the status quo ante established so firmly as to be cast in bronze.

Done.

Agreed. I did indeed write to Chi, and then PMed Bells, as she and others have occasionally PM-goaded me. Nothing unusual in that.
__________________________________________________________________________________

The above being said, maybe it would be best to close the thread after all. There's no mystery about it: the usual suspects have trolled it well and lovingly, and with all the hypocrisy at their command. The issue of basic equality and human rights under reactionary religious law are clearly to be devolved to questions of whether or not one would co-eat a sandwich or drink from a water bottle with a potentially disease-ridden beggar, as if that was somehow an accurate parallel to the actual case of a woman sharing a well with others who consider themselves ideologically superior. In a real world, one would call this fascism, or bigotry, or supremacism: but on here, it is somehow a juggle of sandwiches and Dasani.

How appropriate. Close the thread, and register counseling for half the contributors. It's obvious which ones those ought to be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quadra: well put, as per usual.

I mean: we're really meant to think that Ms. Bibi what? - drooled all over their water bottles, which she collected from a well? Or perhaps she was mouthing their bucket in a strange way, rather than being collectively insulted for what and who she was? Is there any world in which this really makes sense to anyone other than Bells and Sam and maybe Chi?

 

My own (lack of) religion gets described in equally execrable terms here all the time. So, I'll take a pass on the Muslim pity party. Not seeing much failure to live down to the accusations of bigotry and supremacism here, as far as that goes.

The fact of the matter is that all religions are constructed by cleverly sculpted shit. If people have a hard time accepting that, the better solution would be to give up on the religion. Insisting that nobody make you feel bad by observing that your shit stinks is the sort of infantile behavior that just invites further abuse. If people want to be made to feel all warm and fuzzy about their personal religious bigotries, the place for that is their respective religious communities.

Could you be any more of a drama queen?

I think we're at the point where you and Geoff need to just have sex and so get this whole embarassing mutual crush out of your respective systems. The elementary-school approach of papering over it with a lot of trumped-up shit-talk is getting pretty long in the tooth.

 

I'll pass on the sex, thanks.

 

Good thing I wasn't talking about Asia bibi then merely commenting on SPP comment.

lol at the guy who finds nuclear bombing of civilians questionably justified while considering the torture of the Muslim brotherhood members as justified due to their religious inclination.

 

"Making sense" is beside the point. It's an opportunity to Stand Up For Islam - and when it comes to that, the more preposterous the position the better. It's like Larry Flynt's argument as to why people should support his right to free speech - if the Constitution protects him, then it protects anyone. Analogously, if the local self-appointed Defenders of Islam can protect outrageous acts of Muslim bigotry, then by extension they've protected all Muslims everywhere.

 

So take it to the right thread, and let the discussion roll.

That libel was pretty outright. A bold fresh poop.

I can see how it could occupy such a space. A theological "Don't Tread On Me", I guess. I see it as another separation of religious reactionary philosophy from majority opinion or non-opinion. That does drive mean opinion, of course. I guess we're seeing it from different angles, though it probably amounts to much the same. Am I the optimist now?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

S.A.M...was trying to interject some humor into a very tense discussion, which apparently fell *splat*.

...Once again, noting that the laws are controversial in Pakistan and this actually represents progress in my opinion.

Rendition and torture was something I was extremely displeased about as well, and we US people all should be.

Blowback is the CIA term for when our actions come around to haunt us-and also a book by Chalmers Johnson...and our blowback's gonna hurt.
Not if but when.

 

It is the right thread. Your credibility as the defender of human rights is so low, even zero is too high a digit for it.

instant flashback:

Now just put Asia bibi in the place of MB and voila you have instant justification for torture based on religion, a la Geoff.

 

So, you are comparing a Man who in a moment of exasperation commited a sin by taking the lords name in vain and then for some reason two bears came out later and killed the loud and noisy kids. (Basically the man nor God had anything to do with the deaths) To extremists who are using ideas put out by some rupaphobic imams (Mohammed was a true desert rider, he would not have considered the water befouled so easily.) killing a woman who repented her actions.

 

I guess we could go round and round on this one, but I'm breaking your cycle of dumb.

Even more instant flashback:

Rather, you have an instant conclusion that the Brotherhood are neither liberal nor secular. Note the "if" at the start of the sentence above: I bolded the relevant section so you could see it in context.

Ergo, the author knows that the Brotherhood is neither secular nor liberal. This is not me justifying the torture of Brotherhood members. What's wrong, Sam? Comprehension score trailing the pack a little these days? Dear me. Do you ever get tired, springing to false conclusions as you do?

 

You mean, when you point out that the MB is not secular or liberal in response to discussion about their torture? When you completely ignore the fact that thousands of them were tortured focusing only on their religion?

Yeah sure Geoff, its sorta kinda obvious.

Imagine the discussion:

Mr X: Asia bibi hanged for blasphemy. If it was some Muslim woman hanged in France for wearing a burka it would be all over the headlines

Ms Y: And Asia was not wearing a burka, case closed.

Mr X [thinking] and this is relevant because?

 

Be specific. Stop distorting, and spreading around general manure to tar everyone and everything. Explain what you mean. Figure out its context, identify the speaker. Don't tar en masse. Thanks.

That is an amazing conclusion, based on total nonsense. My response was precisely what occurred.

Have you gone insane? I told you that I was sorry about your problems; I did not call you a hypocrite for not responding on a fucking internet forum. I did request you not slander me further. You've lost it. Put away your insane allegations that I'm trying to make some kind of a case for victimhood, and actually think about what I'm trying to tell you, and appreciate the timeline of this whole business rather than bouncing around everywhere.

It certainly could: I had no notion of your illness in my first PM, where that phrase occurs. This is unfortunate and was unintentional.

So concentrate on your RL problems and illness. It's fine with me, given the circumstances, to just walk away from the thread altogether and we can discuss it later, or never. It's fine. I won't let you misportray me, but I will simply leave off the argument altogether.

As you like. As I said before: I'm sorry about your problems, and I hope you get better quickly. Meanwhile, stop lying about me and taking up weird positions. Focus on your health, and get better.

I wish you the best of luck, and I hope your prognosis is very good. I would be happy to be a sounding board out for any problems or worries you have, and I reiterate my offer of help, if I can provide it. This is a sincere offer, not a ploy.

Which is totally unrelated to the point the author was making, and which I pointed out.

Good try on the torture-y thing, sort of. Let me know what your next move is.

 

Geoff would you say that you are mostly negative, or positive in your thoughts and manner?



peace.

 

(Um...get better Bells. If doc okays, ginger and peppermint good for nausea...)

 

*Continues to not read this thread*

Peace/