Blasphemy in Pakistan

[FmrMarine]

I'm sure many have seen this article or one covering the same subject:
http://news.yahoo.com/girl-11-could-face...ories.html

It sure sucks to have religiously motivated laws dictate your life if it isn't your religion of choice doing the dictating.

[myotch]

While I'm inclined to agree with you, I take issue with the application of the law in this case.

The girl in question did not have a Quran - burned or otherwise - in her possession.

She did have other documents in her possession which were burned.

It is unclear who did the burning, and why.

The girl in question is reportedly mentally handicapped.

I don't blame the religion so much as the culture. She practically had a lynch mob ready to kill her. For now, it's a good thing the police took her into custody.

[FmrMarine]

(08-21-2012 10:20 AM)myotch Wrote:  While I'm inclined to agree with you, I take issue with the application of the law in this case.

The girl in question did not have a Quran - burned or otherwise - in her possession.

She did have other documents in her possession which were burned.

It is unclear who did the burning, and why.

The girl in question is reportedly mentally handicapped.

I don't blame the religion so much as the culture. She practically had a lynch mob ready to kill her. For now, it's a good thing the police took her into custody.

Fair enough. But I would submit that their culture and religion are inseparable. That is problematic.

[Darrell]

Quote: That is problematic.

No, that is inevitable.

It's not their religion, it's their extremism that is the problem.

For example, I've never heard of a band of Episcopalians trying to stone anybody.

[FmrMarine]

(08-21-2012 10:49 AM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote: That is problematic.

No, that is inevitable.

It's not their religion, it's their extremism that is the problem.

For example, I've never heard of a band of Episcopalians trying to stone anybody.

Maybe. But it's their brand of extremism. We have people here in the United States who would gladly support a theocracy as long as it were their particular brand of religion being enforced.

[Darrell]

Quote:We have people here in the United States who would gladly support a theocracy as long as it were their particular brand of religion being enforced.

Perhaps a lunatic here or there. The forming of a "state religion" isn't in the stated goals of any Christian church I know of in this country. The entire concept of a theocracy runs counter to most American ideals so American churches tend to be pretty resistant to the idea of having a church-run state.

[myotch]

Our lynch mobs are not historically religion-oriented.

[FmrMarine]

I think one can definitely see elements of religion-based laws here. "Temperance" initiatives, gay marriage prohibition, various blue laws, etc. Clearly, it doesn't go to the extreme that it does in Muslim nations, but I think there are certainly elements of religious groups lobbying for legislation based on religious affiliation. The example that jumps out to me is the gay marriage issue. There are a lot of people who actively oppose gays getting the right to marry because it conflicts with their religion despite the fact that it does not affect them personally.

[myotch]

Gays were not not permitted to marry because of religiosity before 2000, in America or Europe or any number of actual godless states or anywhere else in the world. Why is the denial of gay marriage all of a sudden a religious burden?

[Darrell]

Quote:I think one can definitely see elements of religion-based laws here.

People obviously use their personal moral compass to guide them when they advocate for laws that run the country. Some people use religion to give them those values. Others look to a world-view shaped by atheism.

Any belief which doesn't affect people in their public life isn't much of a belief. Which is quite a different thing from saying that churches want "a theocracy."