Palestianian atheist arrested

[Meow Mix]

[/font]
Not directly, but that's the implication for many Christians.

But my point is this: where should the line be of what is or isn't allowed?

I don't think that it works to place the line based on just offensiveness, because many ideas that are deeply-held by one person are deeply offensive to another.

In terms of this specific incident, I think there's also the issue of consistency: if a Muslim in a Muslim-majority country found themselves suddenly in the minority, how would they want to be treated? Would they want the right to speak their mind then? Would they want to be silenced just because the majority doesn't like their point of view?

I'm also interested in a response to this, this is the same thing I've been asking.

 

[Meow Mix]

no atheist person needs to voice his opinion in dozens of pages to make me see he does not believe in God. i already know that. no atheist needs to insult, mock and swear at Prophet to prove he does not beleve in what i believe. .

Then don't look at his blog. It's that simple. What's difficult about that? Instead, you advocate tyranny. You decry tyranny against Muslims in Europe but then you want to turn around and advocate tyranny in Muslim lands. Don't you see what's wrong with that?

 

[Autodidact]

So you advocate tearing a man away from his family in order to have the basic human dignity of being able to express his own opinion in an OPTIONAL media (i.e., a web page that you can CLICK AWAY FROM if you disagree)?

Really, .lava? Isn't that pretty evil to suggest tearing a man from his family and friends just because some people don't have the spine to NOT look at a web page that offends them?

My guess is that what the authorities are afraid of is that some people will want to look at his web page.

.lava: If people don't want to be offended by his comments about Muhammad, why don't they just not read his blog?

 

[Meow Mix]

My guess is that what the authorities are afraid of is that some people will want to look at his web page.

.lava: If people don't want to be offended by his comments about Muhammad, why don't they just not read his blog?

He supposedly had 70,000 hits. Probably a lot more by now if they haven't censored it, which I wouldn't be surprised by given their (Palestine's gov't) obvious pinache for barbaric censorship.

If I knew how to write Arabic I'd be starting blogs right now aimed at Palestine arguing for atheism. At least those slobbering thugs can't come over here and arrest me. Then, we could write blogs about the US gov't holding Muslims without habeus corpus -- and I *dare* those slobbering thugs to try and arrest me, it'd be a PR nightmare.

 

[.lava]

[/FONT]
I don't disagree with you... so far. Personally, I probably wouldn't want to publish material that insults Muhammad. If someone else asked me if I thought it was a good idea, I'd probably tell them that it wasnt. But this is a separate matter to the question of law, which asks how the state should respond if someone chooses to do it anyway.


To our shame, there's such a law in my nation:

what do you think laws are for?

But why do you see the need for a law against insulting the Prophet, even if people are actually doing it?

why do you think there is a social difference between your and my nation? IMO it all comes to what new generations face in their society. we all get used to what we see everyday. if we let insulting divine become an ordinary act in public, next generations would take it as normal or accepted behavior. i think it is unfair to children to fool them by making them believe insulting divine is OK.

Locking up someone for insulting the Prophet is extreme.

perhabs... and insulting the most basics for Muslims in a Islamic nation is not extreme?

And we are talking about these sorts of things. When you open the door to imposing Islam on non-Muslims, you also open the door to non-Muslim religions being imposed on Muslims elsewhere.

what door? do i look like missionary? the truth is there are hundreds of Chrisitan missionaries all over in certain Muslim nations thanks to American invasion.

It would be hypocritical for a person to support the suppresion of anti-Muslim voices in Palestine while also condemning suppression of Muslim voices in Europe.

i am not going to call that cos i like you. but let me explain what hypocritical to me. laws are for everyone to keep society a secure and peaceful place for everyone. one law on its own would be applied to Muslims and non-Muslims together. no exceptions. for that matter people would be equal citizens. in all this thread i keep saying i am not going to insult or mock someone else's belief. and i am invited to accept insult as a way of expression. there you go.... i have a right to insult. i use my rights because that's what a right for. but i am given a right that i would not use. so in case someone insults my path, there is nothing i could do in return. tell me how could you make that person and my stand equal to each other? how could you make us 'even'?

Silencing of this blogger in Palestine is the exact same mentality that led to the ban on minarets in Switzerland. And IMO, it's wrong in both cases.

how many times do i have to say it? it is their nation. if their society demand it, it is their duty to do it. i don't care. that's not to say i admire it. but i take it as a fact, a Swiss fact

.

 

[.lava]

Then don't look at his blog. It's that simple. What's difficult about that? Instead, you advocate tyranny. You decry tyranny against Muslims in Europe but then you want to turn around and advocate tyranny in Muslim lands. Don't you see what's wrong with that?

excuse me but in Europe some people could not even stand outfit of Muslims, beard of men offends them, headgear of Muslim women offends them. how on Earth you find it similar to mocking and insulting? seems like existence of a Muslim is a problem in Europe and you unknowingly agree existence of Muslim is an insult...? no worries, i know you would not see it that way but hey, if these two examples were in the same place, that has to be the logic. and so far i understand this guy is not behind bars for being an atheist or wearing denim or whatever..

.

 

[Meow Mix]

i am not going to call that cos i like you. but let me explain what hypocritical to me. laws are for everyone to keep society a secure and peaceful place for everyone. one law on its own would be applied to Muslims and non-Muslims together. no exceptions. for that matter people would be equal citizens. in all this thread i keep saying i am not going to insult or mock someone else's belief. and i am invited to accept insult as a way of expression. there you go.... i have a right to insult. i use my rights because that's what a right for. but i am given a right that i would not use. so in case someone insults my path, there is nothing i could do in return. tell me how could you make that person and my stand equal to each other? how could you make us 'even'?.

But how do you legally define an insult to prosecute someone for it, again? I've never seen a good answer to this. If your perfect idea of a country would prosecute for insulting, how do you legally define the difference between an insult and an opinion?

Is a Muslim explaining to a Christian that Jesus was not God an insult? What if some Christians find it insulting, is the Muslim therefore in violation of the law?

Sorry, I've asked this several times but have not seen a good answer to it... I don't want to be a broken record but I think it's an important point for this conversation that keeps getting ignored.

 

[Meow Mix]

excuse me but in Europe some people could not even stand outfit of Muslims, beard of men offends them, headgear of Muslim women offends them. how on Earth you find it similar to mocking and insulting? seems like existence of a Muslim is a problem in Europe and you unknowingly agree existence of Muslim is an insult...? no worries, i know you would not see it that way but hey, if these two examples were in the same place, that has to be the logic. and so far i understand this guy is not behind bars for being an atheist or wearing denim or whatever..

.

You know I disagree with the anti-Muslim stuff going on in Europe, but locking a guy up for suggesting Mohammed is not divine is no less disgusting than if someone locked a Muslim up for suggesting Jesus is not God. Both things can insult someone, but both things can also just be part of an argument someone wants to convey. In what way are they different?

 

[.lava]

You know I disagree with the anti-Muslim stuff going on in Europe, but locking a guy up for suggesting Mohammed is not divine is no less disgusting than if someone locked a Muslim up for suggesting Jesus is not God. Both things can insult someone, but both things can also just be part of an argument someone wants to convey. In what way are they different?

but friend, these examples you give don't cover what he said. first of, why would an atheist think Prophets are divine? he does not believe in God in the first place. secondly, a Muslim would not take any creature as God itself so it is one of the basics of Islam. if it offends someone, that again means he is offended by existence of a Muslim, he is offended by Islam the religion. and yes, there would always be people who's offended by this stuff. that's not the issue here

.

 

[Meow Mix]

but friend, these examples you give don't cover what he said. first of, why would an atheist think Prophets are divine? he does not believe in God in the first place. secondly, a Muslim would not take any creature as God itself so it is one of the basics of Islam. if it offends someone, that again means he is offended by existence of a Muslim, he is offended by Islam the religion. and yes, there would always be people who's offended by this stuff. that's not the issue here
.

I can turn around and say:

"An atheist would not take any creature as divine so it's one of the basics of atheism. If it offends Muslims that an atheist would suggest Mohammed isn't divine, then that means he is offended by the existence of an atheist."

So what's the difference between an atheist arguing Mohammed isn't divine and a Muslim arguing that Jesus isn't God? I don't see any difference. You say the Muslim just doesn't believe any living thing can be God therefore it's acceptable for a Muslim to argue against some living thing being God... but why isn't it therefore acceptable for an atheist (who doesn't believe living things are divine at all) to argue that some living things, including Mohammed, aren't divine?

I myself would argue that Mohammed isn't divine. Would I be insulting if I made such an argument? Should I be exiled/jailed/whatever if I did?

Or was this man only considered "insulting" because he employed satire to drive an argument? If so, why aren't many other comedians in jail, too? You know, sometimes I employ satire to argue against concepts I find absurd. I doubt many find it "insulting" when I do, because its sole purpose is to have the force of argument and to highlight what seems to be absurd to me; not to insult. (Satire is generally used to argue, not to insult: if something is mimicked with changes to insult it's called sarcasm or mocking, not satire).

 

[.lava]

But how do you legally define an insult to prosecute someone for it, again? I've never seen a good answer to this. If your perfect idea of a country would prosecute for insulting, how do you legally define the difference between an insult and an opinion?

i answered that before, i suppose. society decides that. you could not make laws in your nation according to my ideas for instance. when you make a law, what you must do is to answer needs of your society to keep it peaceful. nobody here is asking you to imprison people who insult Islam, right? and they should not. because in your society it would be unfair to do so. because your habits and your understanding does not match with Islamic one. what you want to see in Muslim nations is making a law against needs of society. you expect us to let something that would cause seperation in society to become acceptable. and now, please don't tell me you can't distinguish the difference between an insult and an opinion. we are not first grade, are we?

Is a Muslim explaining to a Christian that Jesus was not God an insult? What if some Christians find it insulting, is the Muslim therefore in violation of the law?

depends. if i was asked by a Christian, i would explain my belief. or a Imam has all the rights to explain it in a mosque. but i, for example, stop a Christian i know whenever i meet him in public to tell him he is on the wrong path because blah blah blah... well, that's unacceptable. noone has right to disturb people like that.

Sorry, I've asked this several times but have not seen a good answer to it... I don't want to be a broken record but I think it's an important point for this conversation that keeps getting ignored.

oh. you're not the only broken record under this thread. i am right there with you. i hope i answered it clearly this time

.

 

[Meow Mix]

i answered that before, i suppose. society decides that. you could not make laws in your nation according to my ideas for instance. when you make a law, what you must do is to answer needs of your society to keep it peaceful. nobody here is asking you to imprison people who insult Islam, right? and they should not. because in your society it would be unfair to do so. because your habits and your understanding does not match with Islamic one. what you want to see in Muslim nations is making a law against needs of society. you expect us to let something that would cause seperation in society to become acceptable. and now, please don't tell me you can't distinguish the difference between an insult and an opinion. we are not first grade, are we?

But why should some poor unfortunate atheist born in a Muslim country not have the same rights to express an opinion as others do?

My point about the distinction between an insult and an opinion is that you seem to think that it's obvious but it's not. I read what this atheist said about Mohammed and didn't find it unnecessary vitriolic or insulting: it appeared to be an argument that Mohammed was just a regular human being like others at the time. It didn't appear to be an insult at all.

Yet YOU took it as an insult.

That's my point: it's a gray area. If you're going to imprison people or exile them because some people "happen" to get insulted by it -- even if it isn't an insult -- i.e. it was just intended as an argument to make a point, then there is a huge problem with ruining people's lives for nothing!

That's what all the rage is about here. I get that you're insulted, but this man was not trying to insult. He was trying to argue a point for why he believed Mohammed was not divine.

This is EXACTLY the same as if a Muslim wasn't trying to insult a Christian, but argued why he believed that Jesus is not God.

There is no difference. Yet this man's life is ruined because of it. That's the injustice. That's why I disagree that even a first grader can tell an insult from an opinion: not meant to be insulting (the irony) but it seems to me that in this case you were unable to tell an insult from an opinion. You probably think the same thing of me.

You argue that because it's a Muslim majority country, then probably most people find it insulting. But this is like arguing in a Christian majority country, a Muslim should just shut up and not say anything -- ever -- about why they believe Jesus is not God.

But I think both of these scenarios are wrong. It should be that both this atheist man should be able to argue why he doesn't think Mohammed is divine IN HIS OWN COUNTRY, just like a Muslim who might have the misfortune of being born in a Christian majority country should have the right to express their opinion that Jesus is not God.

We may never agree on this, but it just blows my mind though. In a free country you could argue that Jesus is not God and an atheist could argue that Mohammed is not divine, and you can even ignore each other if you like and nobody gets hurt ever. But in your idea of a "perfect" country where insulting is punishable, it appears that the majority can argue all they want while the minority just has to shut up and never get to express their opinions for fear of punishment. I would fear to live in such a country, and even if I were in the majority I would be sick that my countrymen seek to suppress those who are different!

depends. if i was asked by a Christian, i would explain my belief. or a Imam has all the rights to explain it in a mosque. but i, for example, stop a Christian i know whenever i meet him in public to tell him he is on the wrong path because blah blah blah... well, that's unacceptable. noone has right to disturb people like that.

But he wasn't stopping people on the streets. He typed his arguments on a blog that Muslims who were offended by it could -- as I've said before -- click AWAY from. Nothing forced any Muslims to go there and read what he typed. Can you dispute this?

 

[Meow Mix]

Let's use a fake article as a counter-example.

MUSLIM BLOGGER JAILED

Today in Christianland, a Muslim blogger was jailed for insulting the divinity of Jesus. He posted such things as "Jesus was a prophet but certainly wasn't God in the flesh" much to the outrage of most of the country. He was tracked down and thrown in prison, while some passers by condemning him to Hell for questioning the divinity of the lord Jesus.

(etc. etc. etc.)

Since it's a Christian majority country, should he have just shut up? Should he have forfeited his right to share his Muslim opinion? Should he have abandoned his lifelong family and friends to "move to a place better suited for him?"

Or should he have expected the basic human dignity to be able to express his opinions in a place where people could OPTIONALLY read it or not without fear of being thrown in jail by ruthless thugs, ruining his entire life over mere words?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

what do you think laws are for?

IMO, the prevention of harm and the creation of benefit, mainly.

why do you think there is a social difference between your and my nation? IMO it all comes to what new generations face in their society. we all get used to what we see everyday. if we let insulting divine become an ordinary act in public, next generations would take it as normal or accepted behavior.

Unless the people who object to it speak out against it as well. There's no reason why the anti-Islamic voice should be the only voice.

i think it is unfair to children to fool them by making them believe insulting divine is OK.

By the same token, I think it's unfair to children to fool them by making them believe that locking up people for speaking their mind is okay.

perhabs... and insulting the most basics for Muslims in a Islamic nation is not extreme?

Not the way he did it.

He didn't drive up and down the streets with a megaphone shouting insults about the Prophet. All he did was post a blog on the internet. Nobody saw what he said unless they sought it out. Nobody saw anything there that they couldn't find from countless other sources online.

what door? do i look like missionary? the truth is there are hundreds of Chrisitan missionaries all over in certain Muslim nations thanks to American invasion.

And I think that's wrong. But you can't fix this by making things worse.

i am not going to call that cos i like you. but let me explain what hypocritical to me. laws are for everyone to keep society a secure and peaceful place for everyone. one law on its own would be applied to Muslims and non-Muslims together. no exceptions. for that matter people would be equal citizens. in all this thread i keep saying i am not going to insult or mock someone else's belief. and i am invited to accept insult as a way of expression. there you go.... i have a right to insult. i use my rights because that's what a right for. but i am given a right that i would not use. so in case someone insults my path, there is nothing i could do in return. tell me how could you make that person and my stand equal to each other? how could you make us 'even'?

You have the right to respond however you want. This doesn't have to be with insults; it can be with reasoned arguments. If you have the truth on your side, you don't need to be worried about insults.

how many times do i have to say it? it is their nation. if their society demand it, it is their duty to do it. i don't care. that's not to say i admire it. but i take it as a fact, a Swiss fact

I disagree.

A country's borders are an artifical creation. They should not be walls to keep out compassion.

 

[jarofthoughts]

i was not there. but so far i see.... he claims to be God, he tries to collect followers and he gives order to his followers... how could that end in your opinion?

.

I've been skimming through his blog (the English version) and I think I've found the passage you are referring to:

'You may object to faith in the existence of god outside you. But what objection have you to call that power god which makes you and me talk, walk, eat, think and work? God is the power within us?'

Is that correct?

If so, then he is not exactly calling himself 'god' but rather he is saying that -we-, that is humans, are our own gods (It becomes obvious if one reads the whole article: ATHEISM Questions and Answers (3/3)) or rather, that what we call gods do not exist.
As for gathering followers, well, as long as he does not incite violence (and I have seen no place where he does that) he should be free to gather like-minded people around him. As for giving whatever followers he might have orders, well, they are in their right to either do as he says or ignore him.

I see no problem with any of this. None at all.

The thing is lava. people have the right to choose their own lives. But if all they think is available is the life of a Muslim, or Christian or Hindu or Atheist or any singular point of view at all for that matter, then that isn't much a choice. The way this works, or should work, is that you can present your point of view, I can present my point of view, and so can anyone else, and people then decide for themselves what they think sounds right. And should anyone insult anyone else at some point, well that's just how the world works. With the diversity that we have today I would think anyone can find someone who's point of view that they find insulting. And that is fine too. That doesn't mean that we should act violently towards them or imprison them. They have the right to their opinion, just the same as you, and they have the right to express that opinion, whatever that opinion may be.

 

[Meow Mix]

I've been skimming through his blog (the English version) and I think I've found the passage you are referring to:

'You may object to faith in the existence of god outside you. But what objection have you to call that power god which makes you and me talk, walk, eat, think and work? God is the power within us?'

Is that correct?

If so, then he is not exactly calling himself 'god' but rather he is saying that -we-, that is humans, are our own gods (It becomes obvious if one reads the whole article: ATHEISM Questions and Answers (3/3)) or rather, that what we call gods do not exist.
As for gathering followers, well, as long as he does not incite violence (and I have seen no place where he does that) he should be free to gather like-minded people around him. As for giving whatever followers he might have orders, well, they are in their right to either do as he says or ignore him.

I see no problem with any of this. None at all.

Actually I think it's because the guy started a Facebook page with an avatar of God from Monty Python and the Holy Grail and posted modified verses from the Quran to show why he thought they were ridiculous -- i.e., used satire by pretending to be God giving ridiculous commandments.

This is why I've been trying to talk about what constitutes an "insult." Some people are insulted by satire, some people are not because they see it for what it is: a mode of argumentation that attempts to demonstrate why something is thought to be silly by exaggerating it.

 

[jarofthoughts]

why do you think there is a social difference between your and my nation? IMO it all comes to what new generations face in their society. we all get used to what we see everyday. if we let insulting divine become an ordinary act in public, next generations would take it as normal or accepted behavior. i think it is unfair to children to fool them by making them believe insulting divine is OK.

And I think it is borderline child abuse to fool children into thinking that there is anything 'divine' in the first place.
So where does that leave us?
Why should your opinion on this matter be more valid than mine?

perhabs... and insulting the most basics for Muslims in a Islamic nation is not extreme?

And how about the publishing of the Quran or the Bible in a secular society, as is being done in Norway, one of the most secular countries in the world where personal freedom is one of the most basic tenets. There are many passages in those books that advocate things that most people in Norway would find not only insulting but right out horrible.

Should we ban publishing/owning the Quran in Norway then?
Does that sound fair to you?

 

[Meow Mix]

And I think it is borderline child abuse to fool children into thinking that there is anything 'divine' in the first place.
So where does that leave us?
Why should your opinion on this matter be more valid than mine?

Can't speak for .lava. but I think one of her arguments is that it's because it's a Muslim majority country, people shouldn't have the right to insult what the majority holds sacred... I think. That's what I've gathered from all these pages of discussion

 

[jarofthoughts]

Actually I think it's because the guy started a Facebook page with an avatar of God from Monty Python and the Holy Grail and posted modified verses from the Quran to show why he thought they were ridiculous -- i.e., used satire by pretending to be God giving ridiculous commandments.

This is why I've been trying to talk about what constitutes an "insult." Some people are insulted by satire, some people are not because they see it for what it is: a mode of argumentation that attempts to demonstrate why something is thought to be silly by exaggerating it.

Ah.

So what this mainly comes down to is that people take themselves and their opinions too seriously?

Nothing new there...

People need to grow a funny-bone, or at least accept that they do not have any special rights to not have their opinions challenged or insulted.


I'll give an example:
This video, "Beware the Believers", could be seen as using satire to make fun of and insult, not only atheism, but science as well. And personally I hold science to be the most important idea we humans have ever come up with (to be sure I also consider religions to be human "ideas" but no matter) but instead of becoming insulted I find the video to be somewhat fun and rather catchy. And I don't take myself and my opinions (religious faith is also just an opinion) so seriously that I would outlaw making fun of them?

 

[no-body]

Things I've learned from this thread: "liberal" Muslims are about at the level of 1950's America. Hopefully they reach the 60's soon.