|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 28, 2017 19:30:43 GMT
Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 28, 2017 22:15:48 GMT
What in particular is interesting? The bigoted little cockroach's retreat into passive-aggressive responses, or the fact that he's a bigoted little cockroach in the first place?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 22:23:46 GMT
I often wonder whether the harsh sentences for atheism in Muslim nations is motivated more by fear (i.e. similar to the way that 'safe spaces' seek to shelter students from ideas different to the ones that they cherish at western universities), or simply the desire to control the population. Firstly, the sentence of death was for apostasy, not for being atheist. Mr Shamri’s sentence in all probability would have been the same regardless whether he became an atheist, or a Christian, or a Buddhist, or whatever. Renouncing Islam is what did it.
Secondly it has nothing to do with fear - apostasy is simply a criminal offence in Saudi Arabia. There's no point reading any more into it than that. If somebody decided to take off all their clothes and walk around naked, and as a result got arrested for breaking public decency laws, it's not because the authorities are fearful that everybody else might start taking off their clothes if they don't clamp down on nudity and shelter their population from entertaining such thoughts. It's just because the law, rightly or wrongly, says that public nudity is illegal, that's all.
(Edit) Oh and anybody who says that "all religions are like this, just want to control their supplicants, blah, blah" is an idiot. Most religious people don't think people should be put to death for apostasy. Indeed, I'd venture to guess that most Muslims don't think that either, although the proportion of those who do does worry me somewhat.
I am aware that practicing Christianity would entail a severe penalty, but atheism is actually classified as a terrorist offence under Saudi law, unlike Christianity. Classifying 'rejecting the established brand of superstition' as actual terrorism smacks of insecurity.
And the proportion of Muslims who believe that apostasy should be a capital offence is indeed alarming. Certainly in some Muslim majority nations, there is a majority who support it:
www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/?utm_term=.9067ad9d39ee
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 29, 2017 10:29:34 GMT
atheism is actually classified as a terrorist offence under Saudi law I'm not here to defend Saudi Arabia, but that's complete nonsense. If you are basing this 'fact' on that highly misleading Huffington Post headline, then if you read the article, you'll see that it's actually “Calling for atheist thought in any form" that the Saudis classify as a terrorist offence. In other words, be as atheist as you like, but stay well in the closet and don't try to influence Muslims into abandoning their faith, otherwise they get put to death and you get classified as a terrorist. Atheists, like Christians, Jews, etc. are classified as non-muslim (or Dhimmi, or Kafir, or whatever the hell they call it) in Saudi, but otherwise there's nothing particularly special about their status.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Apr 29, 2017 10:52:13 GMT
atheism is actually classified as a terrorist offence under Saudi law I'm not here to defend Saudi Arabia, but that's complete nonsense. If you are basing this 'fact' on that highly misleading Huffington Post headline, then if you read the article, you'll see that it's actually “Calling for atheist thought in any form" that the Saudis classify as a terrorist offence. In other words, be as atheist as you like, but stay well in the closet and don't try to influence Muslims into abandoning their faith, otherwise they get put to death and you get classified as a terrorist. Atheists, like Christians, Jews, etc. are classified as non-muslim (or Dhimmi, or Kafir, or whatever the hell they call it) in Saudi, but otherwise there's nothing particularly special about their status. Sure sounds like you're defending Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 29, 2017 11:03:42 GMT
Sure sounds like you're defending Saudi Arabia. No it doesn't. Disagreeing with the part of mic's post which I quoted is not defending Saudi Arabia. Are you genuinely unable to tell the difference, or are you just pretending that you can't? I find the Saudi regime just as abhorrent as you do, but if you want any clarification on my views, you know you only have to ask.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2017 12:29:39 GMT
What in particular is interesting? The bigoted little cockroach's retreat into passive-aggressive responses, or the fact that he's a bigoted little cockroach in the first place? LOL
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 29, 2017 14:22:26 GMT
I often wonder whether the harsh sentences for atheism in Muslim nations is motivated more by fear (i.e. similar to the way that 'safe spaces' seek to shelter students from ideas different to the ones that they cherish at western universities), or simply the desire to control the population. I think that the people behind 'safe spaces' at universities would heartily agree with the ethos of banning expressions of atheism in order to protect the beliefs of Muslims, although not the extreme punishment that is favoured by governments in Muslim majority nations. In any case, here is the relevant news article: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-man-sentenced-death-atheism-ahmad-al-shamri-hafar-al-batin-appeal-denied-a7703161.htmlI think this is some of that Culture we so desperately need to Enrich Europe.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 30, 2017 3:41:25 GMT
In order to live side by side we need tolerance. It isn't religion alone. If you disagree with someone about something do you "unfriend" them and look for a hive mind were everyone is in agreement? If you are meat eater do you unfriend someone because they're vegetarian and it is too much of a waste of time and effort to tolerate them? We passively tolerate people every day, and passively respect their views and decisions. In most cases it takes no effort at all! It does come down to judgment and condemnation, but when a controlled and fear based fanatical religious society chooses to execute somebody for not towing their line, as opposed to the examples you have given, it does become a different ball park. The passive tolerance you have suggested is negligible and a different dynamic. It becomes a menace. Do you tolerate others bullying and oppressing you? Are you wanting to go to war with Saudi Arabia?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 30, 2017 4:53:47 GMT
Are you wanting to go to war with Saudi Arabia? Why? Do you? Of course not. Just trying to figure out where you are drawing the line on this.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Apr 30, 2017 11:07:40 GMT
Why don't you inform the condemned man to 'live and let live', for not bowing down to what was expected of him by the corrupt religion of his hypocritical and extremist society. What has this got to do with your original question: "we need to be tolerant, accepting and respecting of others' customs and way of life. Why?"? You appear to have moved the goal posts. It doesn't get promoted that we need to be tolerant and accepting of corrupt, hypocritical and extremist societies, does it? The problem there isn't so much that we are required to be tolerant, but that it's not always easy to know what we should do about them, and sometimes being tolerant is seen, rightly or wrongly, as the least bad option. For example that's why nobody has nuked North Korea yet. So any intolerance we show toward Saudi Arabia needs to be manifested with a plan of action. You appear to have ruled out Smithy's suggestion that we go to war with them, so what would you recommend instead?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 30, 2017 13:13:23 GMT
I don;t think there is much of a connection between tolerance and action.
The majority of the world is largely united against countries who practice religious persecution, although I'm sure there are atheists and others that are divided about the notion of allowing religions to practice their faiths free of persecution.
So that is the only action one can take against this and hope it leaks through. However, since most people aren't religious persecuted in Saudi Arabia or Russia, or whatever sucky country, & information regarding the blasphemy committed is sketchy or a person clearly broke the law regarding it, then there's not much chance for change anytime soon.
The only other option would be to challenge the sovereignty of that nation which at a minimum would include sanction them through the UN or embargosIf not that, then there's war to take that sovereignty away from them which isn't going to happen.
If Saudi Arabia isn't faces sanctions for their persecution of other religions, they sure ain't going to face it over an atheist.
So the end result will be to keep protesting from the outside their human rights record.
|
|
|
Post by sublime92 on Apr 30, 2017 18:05:36 GMT
The UN elected Saudi Arabia to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
There you have comeuppance at its most naked.
|
|
chasallnut
Sophomore
@chasallnut
Posts: 506
Likes: 158
|
Post by chasallnut on May 1, 2017 8:49:21 GMT
In order to live side by side we need tolerance. It isn't religion alone. If you disagree with someone about something do you "unfriend" them and look for a hive mind were everyone is in agreement? If you are meat eater do you unfriend someone because they're vegetarian and it is too much of a waste of time and effort to tolerate them? We passively tolerate people every day, and passively respect their views and decisions. In most cases it takes no effort at all! It does come down to judgment and condemnation, but when a controlled and fear based fanatical religious society chooses to execute somebody for not towing their line, as opposed to the examples you have given, it does become a different ball park. The passive tolerance you have suggested is negligible and a different dynamic. It becomes a menace. Do you tolerate others bullying and oppressing you? What has this got to do with your original question: "we need to be tolerant, accepting and respecting of others' customs and way of life. Why?"? You appear to have moved the goal posts.
It doesn't get promoted that we need to be tolerant and accepting of corrupt, hypocritical and extremist societies, does it? The problem there isn't so much that we are required to be tolerant, but that it's not always easy to know what we should do about them, and sometimes being tolerant is seen, rightly or wrongly, as the least bad option. For example that's why nobody has nuked North Korea yet.
So any intolerance we show toward Saudi Arabia needs to be manifested with a plan of action. You appear to have ruled out Smithy's suggestion that we go to war with them, so what would you recommend instead?
Rather than duplicate effort I will refer you to TickinggMask's reply which is pretty much what I would have said
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 1, 2017 8:54:47 GMT
It does come down to judgment and condemnation, but when a controlled and fear based fanatical religious society chooses to execute somebody for not towing their line, as opposed to the examples you have given, it does become a different ball park. The passive tolerance you have suggested is negligible and a different dynamic. It becomes a menace. Do you tolerate others bullying and oppressing you? What has this got to do with your original question: "we need to be tolerant, accepting and respecting of others' customs and way of life. Why?"? You appear to have moved the goal posts.
It doesn't get promoted that we need to be tolerant and accepting of corrupt, hypocritical and extremist societies, does it? The problem there isn't so much that we are required to be tolerant, but that it's not always easy to know what we should do about them, and sometimes being tolerant is seen, rightly or wrongly, as the least bad option. For example that's why nobody has nuked North Korea yet.
So any intolerance we show toward Saudi Arabia needs to be manifested with a plan of action. You appear to have ruled out Smithy's suggestion that we go to war with them, so what would you recommend instead?
Rather than duplicate effort I will refer you to TickinggMask's reply which is pretty much what I would have said
Wow. Green letters. Skyhawk.....is that you?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 1, 2017 12:13:39 GMT
tpfkar You have a lot of people you pine for. If I thought that were the case, I might be out robbing and looting and having a hell of a good time right now.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on May 2, 2017 8:56:51 GMT
You made the comment, in an attempt to answer my question with your circular rhetoric and I just threw it back at you. I get the feeling you don't like that, and while you may mean well, you can also come across as very self-centered and self-opinionated. Yes, it does get promoted about how we need to be tolerant of others religious beliefs and cultures, regardless of how we may really feel. You are attempting to do this yourself with your own responses. That is your own goal and agenda. I think most people are just hypocritical phonies and will feign acceptance and tolerance, while underneath they have nothing but scorn, contempt and ridicule. While you make a good point about it not being easy to know what to do about it, we know very well that it comes down to oppressive control and conditioning in an attempt to maintain the status quo. This is apparent in all of our religious, legal and political systems, and THEY don't ever want it to change, because ultimately the hierarchy don't care. Profit and oppression before peoples rights and in the case of SA, their own citizen's personal choice and right to be free thinkers. So, with this response you a) deliberately misquoted me in order to try and pretend that you didn't move the goal posts, b) got it into your head that I am some (well-meaning!) villain with a secret agenda - one of the mysterious 'THEY', perhaps, which you seem unable to elaborate on - and c) avoided my question completely.
I guess you had nothing else.
|
|
chasallnut
Sophomore
@chasallnut
Posts: 506
Likes: 158
|
Post by chasallnut on May 2, 2017 8:57:08 GMT
Rather than duplicate effort I will refer you to TickinggMask's reply which is pretty much what I would have said. That is just being a jerk and coat-tailing, because I don't think you really know how to respond. Get over yourself. And frankly I couldn't care what you think. It does come down to judgment and condemnation, but when a controlled and fear based fanatical religious society chooses to execute somebody for not towing their line, as opposed to the examples you have given, it does become a different ball park.
Whether I like it or not the man has broken Saudi Law. I am not tolerating Saudi Law, or this action to be specific, but as I don't live in Saudi Arabia and have little influence there is little I can do but to accept a decision I don't agree with nor like. I don't agree with capital punishment anywhere but it doesn't mean if I smuggle drugs through Malaysia I can use that as an excuse. Other than petitioning through the UN there is little I can do, so I accept their law, though I may not agree with it.
The passive tolerance you have suggested is negligible and a different dynamic. It becomes a menace. Do you tolerate others bullying and oppressing you?
Why should I accept bullying? I live in a society that does not accept bullying. It has nothing to do with tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on May 2, 2017 9:00:04 GMT
And what you have commented here is not a passive aggressive and insulting response??? There's nothing passive about my aggression, matey. Although you are possibly the first person ever to say that calling somebody out as a bigoted little cockroach is a passive-aggressive response.
|
|
chasallnut
Sophomore
@chasallnut
Posts: 506
Likes: 158
|
Post by chasallnut on May 2, 2017 9:25:40 GMT
Get over yourself. And frankly I couldn't care what you think. It does come down to judgment and condemnation, but when a controlled and fear based fanatical religious society chooses to execute somebody for not towing their line, as opposed to the examples you have given, it does become a different ball park.
Whether I like it or not the man has broken Saudi Law. I am not tolerating Saudi Law, or this action to be specific, but as I don't live in Saudi Arabia and have little influence there is little I can do but to accept a decision I don't agree with nor like. I don't agree with capital punishment anywhere but it doesn't mean if I smuggle drugs through Malaysia I can use that as an excuse. Other than petitioning through the UN there is little I can do, so I accept their law, though I may not agree with it.
The passive tolerance you have suggested is negligible and a different dynamic. It becomes a menace. Do you tolerate others bullying and oppressing you?
Why should I accept bullying? I live in a society that does not accept bullying. It has nothing to do with tolerance. Like wise! As for the society that we live in that doesn't accept bullying, what society do you live in? I think you have your eyes wide shut perhaps. You think society accepts bullying?...... or are you getting confused over bullying that may happen surreptitiously but is kept quiet. Somewhat different.
|
|