11 year old girl facing death penalty for "blasphemy"

[Alceste]

Sure they did. But the country as a whole did not.
You don't make money by manufacturing expensive products, training a huge work force, & then sending
them some place where the delivery team is killed or maimed, & the product blown up or abandoned.
A measure of how capitalistic a country is would correlate with a measure of economic liberty, eh?
Index of Economic Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of the top countries, how many wage so many wars? Hint: Only one

Free trade =/= capitalism. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, with material benefits accruing to the property owner rather than the laborers who produce the goods. Free trade is an ideal held by capitalists where the public, by means of their elected representatives, does not have the power or authority to intervene in any economic activity the property owners might choose to engage in.

The entire Bush government was made up of capitalists who specifically profit from defense spending. Do you imagine they all suddenly forgot how much money they could make from starting a few wars when they saw their first government paycheque?

 

[Revoltingest]

Free trade =/= capitalism. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, with material benefits accruing to the property owner rather than the laborers who produce the goods. Free trade is an ideal held by capitalists where the public, by means of their elected representatives, does not have the power or authority to intervene in any economic activity the property owners might choose to engage in.

I call "red herring". The top countries in the list engage in rampant capitalism.
And several have arms industries.

The entire Bush government was made up of capitalists who specifically profit from defense spending. Do you imagine they all suddenly forgot how much money they could make from starting a few wars when they saw their first government paycheque?

Tis easy to say. Who profited by how much?
What say you of Obama's continuing the wars? Do he & his staff personally benefit?
And going back to other war mongers, how did Johnson's & Nixon's staffs benefit?
(Although I credit Nixon for actually ending a war.)

 

[Sir Doom]

Not to distract from the economic debate...

But I was thinking... they want this girl executed for burning some pages of the Quran. After demanding her arrest, they rioted and burned down a bunch of homes.

It seems to me they probably put a few Qurans in danger of being burned by doing this. Executions all around, yes?

>.>

 

[Alceste]

I call "red herring". The top countries in the list engage in rampant capitalism.
And several have arms industries.

Tis easy to say. Who profited by how much?
What say you of Obama's continuing the wars? Do he & his staff personally benefit?
And going back to other war mongers, how did Johnson's & Nixon's staffs benefit?
(Although I credit Nixon for actually ending a war.)

I think the US is a plutocracy. It's not useful to try to distinguish between the government and private industry. The Democrats are in the pockets of bankers, the Republicans are pockets of arms dealers, and they all have a personal financial interest in maintaining monstrous level of public spending on arms and warfare, which the public will only tolerate when you tell them there is something to fight.

 

[Orias]

I think your historical knowledge is somewhat lacking. Christianity has never took over the world with an iron grip. In fact, it really has never taken a hold of much of Asia, or parts of Africa and South America.

As for motivation, it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with defining us vs them.

Straw man acknowledged.

Sorry, I thought you would know what I meant when I said after the Christians killed off an entire population of pagans they took over the known world.

And as for motivation, it was based purely off of religion and self preservation of inspiring belief and culture.

You say I lack historical knowledge, but wherein this post of yours do you exactly prove that?

So I'll ask again, what other motivation could there be for a religious movement that kills and eradicates an entire population of self professed pagans. If it has nothing to do with religion but defining "us vs them", then how is religion excluded from this well observed culture?

 

[ChristineES]

I hate reading those kinds of stories. They make me angry and very sad and I don't like being angry. I can't expect extremists to change, but I wish someone (moderate) would save the child and send her away from there. I actually get tears in my eyes and I feel guilty because I wish there was something I could do.

 

[dawny0826]

This is an issue of ignorant people and a government in need of change, which the article and the article that is linked within the article, states is acknowledged. It seems that the government and police involved in the situation are treating the case as sensitively as possible, considering the risk of additional violence from Pakistani citizens.

I don't see these issues as religious based issues. I see these as ignorance based issues. Hopefully, something positive will result and the government will put on their big boy pants and do the right thing.

 

[JustWondering]

What Islamic law actually states regarding the matter, for one.

Thank you.

 

[SLAMH]

The problem is that the extremists are taking control, and they have got the people to think that this is God's law. I'm not trying to argue that this is not the real Islam or anything, because all in all there is no anyway to prove how my views on Islam are necessary more credible than theirs. The point is that Islam must be let free and not being a tool possessed by some organized groups. If this happens, so then anyone can criticize and evaluate it for the benefit of all, and by this no opinions would be regarded as divine commands, but merely human judgments.

 

[jasonwill2]

I think your historical knowledge is somewhat lacking. Christianity has never took over the world with an iron grip. In fact, it really has never taken a hold of much of Asia, or parts of Africa and South America.

As for motivation, it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with defining us vs them.

:yes:
and of course, the "us" are justified

Straw man acknowledged.

Sorry, I thought you would know what I meant when I said after the Christians killed off an entire population of pagans they took over the known world.

And as for motivation, it was based purely off of religion and self preservation of inspiring belief and culture.

You say I lack historical knowledge, but wherein this post of yours do you exactly prove that?

So I'll ask again, what other motivation could there be for a religious movement that kills and eradicates an entire population of self professed pagans. If it has nothing to do with religion but defining "us vs them", then how is religion excluded from this well observed culture?

I seriously am suprized you guys don't get what Orias was saying. Christians DID often kill those who did not convert, and they conqured quite a large portion of the world that way.

Not to distract from the economic debate...

But I was thinking... they want this girl executed for burning some pages of the Quran. After demanding her arrest, they rioted and burned down a bunch of homes.

It seems to me they probably put a few Qurans in danger of being burned by doing this. Executions all around, yes?

>.>

Now here is an interesting thought.

 

[waitasec]

I seriously am suprized you guys don't get what Orias was saying. Christians DID often kill those who did not convert, and they conqured quite a large portion of the world that way.

it was the us vs. them comment i was racting to...i highlighted it


because that is what religion does...separating the us's and the them's
the rights from the wrongs...the christians vs the non christians.

 

[waitasec]

Now here is an interesting thought.

i doubt that those who would execute an 11 yr old girl would have the ability for such foresight

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the US is a plutocracy. It's not useful to try to distinguish between the government and private industry. The Democrats are in the pockets of bankers, the Republicans are pockets of arms dealers, and they all have a personal financial interest in maintaining monstrous level of public spending on arms and warfare, which the public will only tolerate when you tell them there is something to fight.

Then why do Dems (in the pockets of bankers) also wage expensive wars, & Pubs (in the pockets of arms makers) bail out banks?
And if capitalism is to blame, why do/did socialist countries also wage wars, eg, USSR, N Korea, Nazi Germany?
Again I ask, how much does anyone in public office benefit from these wars? Who steers us to war & how much
did they make from what company? Methinks this is just a conspiracy theory.

 

[Father Heathen]

because all in all there is no anyway to prove how my views on Islam are necessary more credible than theirs.

Sure there is. If there is a god, it would be a being of pure love and pure logic. Therefore anything devoid of compassion or reason is not of god.

 

[Falvlun]

If someone started running around killing genetically disformed babies under the pretense of "not wanting them to pollute the gene pool" we wouldn't blame the theory of evolution for their behavior.

We would if they claimed they were doing it because of the theory of evolution. In fact, social Darwinism is still a popular reason people bring up as to why the theory of evolution is evil and shouldn't be taught.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Sure but those philosophies don't have the history and power that religion do.

Don't you mean not yet they don't?

 

[fallingblood]

I seriously am suprized you guys don't get what Orias was saying. Christians DID often kill those who did not convert, and they conqured quite a large portion of the world that way.

I get what Orias is saying (and instead of also replying to his statement, I will just do it here), I just don't agree.

In the time period he is talking about, Christianity ruled a small portion of the world. The majority of the world was not Christian. The problem we have here is that (and I'm not just saying you, it is common for many of us, and I have been guilty of this as well) we often only picture the western world, while ignoring the rest. Sure, Europe was ruled (to a point) and some of the Middle East, but during that time (depending on exactly when we are talking about) Asia, much of Africa, South America, North America, and the variety of other island nations (as well as Australia) did not know Christianity. Even today, Christianity does not represent a majority of the population. It may be the largest religion, but is still is a minority in the grand scheme of things.

Also, many of the pagans who did convert did so on their own free will. Christianity offered something they were not getting else where. Yes, there was also parts in which it was spread by the sword; however, in those instances, one can also find Christian on Christian fighting.

The real motivation here wasn't spreading Christianity. It was spreading the power of a nation. Sure, religion may have been an excuse; but if religion wouldn't have been used, some other excuse would have been used. The reason being, it wasn't about religion. It was about power, and being different.

The real problem here (and we have seen it in this thread as well), is an us vs them mentality. And waitasec made a great point; the "us" usually gets justified. And whether or not one practices the religion is besides the point.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Live and let live, even if they don't let me live

 

[jasonwill2]

I get what Orias is saying (and instead of also replying to his statement, I will just do it here), I just don't agree.

In the time period he is talking about, Christianity ruled a small portion of the world. The majority of the world was not Christian. The problem we have here is that (and I'm not just saying you, it is common for many of us, and I have been guilty of this as well) we often only picture the western world, while ignoring the rest. Sure, Europe was ruled (to a point) and some of the Middle East, but during that time (depending on exactly when we are talking about) Asia, much of Africa, South America, North America, and the variety of other island nations (as well as Australia) did not know Christianity. Even today, Christianity does not represent a majority of the population. It may be the largest religion, but is still is a minority in the grand scheme of things.

Also, many of the pagans who did convert did so on their own free will. Christianity offered something they were not getting else where. Yes, there was also parts in which it was spread by the sword; however, in those instances, one can also find Christian on Christian fighting.

The real motivation here wasn't spreading Christianity. It was spreading the power of a nation. Sure, religion may have been an excuse; but if religion wouldn't have been used, some other excuse would have been used. The reason being, it wasn't about religion. It was about power, and being different.

The real problem here (and we have seen it in this thread as well), is an us vs them mentality. And waitasec made a great point; the "us" usually gets justified. And whether or not one practices the religion is besides the point.

The Church was the government then, and they actively were trying to convert the pagan nations of Europe, killing those who did not convert.

 

[fallingblood]

The Church was the government then, and they actively were trying to convert the pagan nations of Europe, killing those who did not convert.

The Church was also doing a lot that simply had nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, they were killing other Christians, because they didn't agree. They went as far as killing Popes. To think it had anything to do with Christianity really is not looking at the historical situation. Especially considering the circumstances surrounding the history here.

The Church was much more than a religious institution. It was a political and economical institution that operated very similar to preceding governments.