Sentenced to Death for Blasphemy - Why?

[Immanuel Can]

• blasphemy
  impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

Generally blasphemy is related to God and thus in this Philosophy of Religion.

Killing for expressing opposing views in politics is very common, but that is politics, not religion. This is often labelled as dissent, subversive, seditious, treasonous, insults to the rulers, etc.

I doubt it makes any difference whatsoever to the victims. Call them "blasphemers" or "subversives," and they still end up dead at the end of the day.

[uwot]

Call them "blasphemers" or "subversives," and they still end up dead at the end of the day.

And tortured for eternity by the "Supreme Being".

[nothing]

I do not even know what the question is asking.

Did you ever take the Islamic shahada testimony?
An equivalent question would be: are you a Muslim?

[Immanuel Can]

My main concern with this "Sentenced to Death for Blasphemy"

Well, the problem with that is this: that while it justifiably draws attention to what evil men do in the name of religion, it overlooks the much more massive evil that men have historically done, and are still doing, in the name of "the good society," or of some secular ideology like Marxism, that sponsors somebody's new "utopia."

And that's a problem. Because secularism loves to point the finger at the less than 8% of the people who have been killed in nominally "religious" conflicts, but uses that to avoid having to recognize its own far greater evils.

Thus, accusation of the "religious" (even in justified cases) is employed to screen the real danger -- that of secular ideologies gone wrong. And if anyone knows how to count, he can see for himself which of the two is, by exponential orders of magnitude, the greater threat to the human race.

So by all means, solve the "blasphemy" execution problem. I'm totally on board with that. But if one really cares about humanity, solve the "executed for the benefit of a secular society" problem too.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My main concern with this "Sentenced to Death for Blasphemy"

Well, the problem with that is this: that while it justifiably draws attention to what evil men do in the name of religion, it overlooks the much more massive evil that men have historically done, and are still doing, in the name of "the good society," or of some secular ideology like Marxism, that sponsors somebody's new "utopia."

And that's a problem. Because secularism loves to point the finger at the less than 8% of the people who have been killed in nominally "religious" conflicts, but uses that to avoid having to recognize its own far greater evils.

Thus, accusation of the "religious" (even in justified cases) is employed to screen the real danger -- that of secular ideologies gone wrong. And if anyone knows how to count, he can see for himself which of the two is, by exponential orders of magnitude, the greater threat to the human race.

So by all means, solve the "blasphemy" execution problem. I'm totally on board with that. But if one really cares about humanity, solve the "executed for the benefit of a secular society" problem too.

My personal vision and mission for humanity is "Striving Towards Perpetual Peace."
Perpetual Peace is definitely an ideal [impossible in practice] but when ALL [if not a critical mass] strive towards perpetual peace at all times, there will be continual improvements towards the ideal with lesser and lesser evil and violent acts.

In striving towards perpetual peace humanity must address ALL potential evil and violent acts. I believe there must be changes in the brain and neural connectivity in order to promote improvement, thus the requirement of the Neurosciences, etc.
But this is the 'Philosophy of Religion' section, so I have to confine to evil and violent acts related to religion, in this case, Religious-based blasphemy.

All potential evil and violent acts cover all aspects of humanity but one critical area is morality which I have covered in our discussions in the General Section. Humanity do not need absolute moral laws [corrupted] from an illusory God in the future. Humanity can establish it own fool proof absolute moral laws for guidance within morality and ethics. Note I am not going into details on this here.

[Age]

My main concern with this "Sentenced to Death for Blasphemy"

Well, the problem with that is this: that while it justifiably draws attention to what evil men do in the name of religion, it overlooks the much more massive evil that men have historically done, and are still doing, in the name of "the good society," or of some secular ideology like Marxism, that sponsors somebody's new "utopia."

And that's a problem. Because secularism loves to point the finger at the less than 8% of the people who have been killed in nominally "religious" conflicts, but uses that to avoid having to recognize its own far greater evils.

Thus, accusation of the "religious" (even in justified cases) is employed to screen the real danger -- that of secular ideologies gone wrong. And if anyone knows how to count, he can see for himself which of the two is, by exponential orders of magnitude, the greater threat to the human race.

So by all means, solve the "blasphemy" execution problem. I'm totally on board with that. But if one really cares about humanity, solve the "executed for the benefit of a secular society" problem too.

My personal vision and mission for humanity is "Striving Towards Perpetual Peace."
Perpetual Peace is definitely an ideal [impossible in practice] but when ALL [if not a critical mass] strive towards perpetual peace at all times, there will be continual improvements towards the ideal with lesser and lesser evil and violent acts.

In striving towards perpetual peace humanity must address ALL potential evil and violent acts. I believe there must be changes in the brain and neural connectivity in order to promote improvement, thus the requirement of the Neurosciences, etc.
But this is the 'Philosophy of Religion' section, so I have to confine to evil and violent acts related to religion, in this case, Religious-based blasphemy.

All potential evil and violent acts cover all aspects of humanity but one critical area is morality which I have covered in our discussions in the General Section. Humanity do not need absolute moral laws [corrupted] from an illusory God in the future. Humanity can establish it own fool proof absolute moral laws for guidance within morality and ethics. Note I am not going into details on this here.

Note, why not?

If you can establish your own fool proof ABSOLUTE moral laws for guidance within morality and ethics, why do you not do this here and now, so for once and for all, this will be solved forever more?

Sounds like a very normal thing to do.

If as you propose that you can establish some laws for guidance, then go right ahead and do it. I am SURE the future of humanity would thank "veritas aequitas" for doing it for them.

[Age]

I do not even know what the question is asking.

Did you ever take the Islamic shahada testimony?
An equivalent question would be: are you a Muslim?

No.

The word 'you' stands for or denotes a 'person', and there is NO person that could be a "muslim". This is because a 'muslim' can not be defined in a uniformly accepted and agreed way, just like the words, "christian", "hindu", "buddhist", "america", "irish", "italian", "arab", "scientist", "preacher", "teacher", "student", also can not be defined in a uniformly accepted and agreed ways also.

Each and EVERY 'person' is uniquely the same as each and EVERY unique person in that they are ALL equally the exact same in that they are ALL uniquely different and special from each "other". That is; NO person is more than nor less than "another", and EACH person is the special one there is, just as EVERY "other" 'person' IS, as well.

The word 'you' means a 'person' and EVERY person is the exact same in that they are uniquely different.

There is absolutely NOTHING any one can do to separate people into different and separate categories groups, although ALL 'you', adult ones 'try to' do it.

So, to answer 'your' question: Are 'you' a muslim? The Answer is No. 'you' are ALL the exact same, in that 'you' are ALL uniquely different from each "other".

Does that answer 'your' question sufficiently and thoroughly enough, for 'you'?

[Immanuel Can]

But this is the 'Philosophy of Religion' section, so I have to confine to evil and violent acts related to religion, in this case, Religious-based blasphemy.

Then I suggest that you're using too narrow a definition of "religious." The unquestioning fervour of Socialist ideologues shows that while they have no "gods" in mind, they are certain in thrall to the worship of a specific vision of the future and are blindly playing out their roles. Their attitude is "religious" in the very worst possible sense that word can have. If we define "religion" not merely as a belief in a god, but view it from the human end, as a phenomenon in which the worshipper devotes his patterns of life to the service of a creed or idealization, then it fits squarely within "the religious."

However, even if we don't, then we still have this question: is mass-murder or the torturing of dissenters a specifically "religious" phenomenon, or is it practiced even more widely among secularists? And the answer, statistically, is "yes," of course. And this would call into question whether the charge of "blasphemy" was really an important cause at all. For secularists enact such cruelties far more often than religionists, and this implies that murdering and torturing each other for various charges is not so much a "religious" phenomenon -- the tag "blasphemy" simply being used as a placeholder for terms like "dissident," "counter-revolutionary," "bourgeoisie" and other such secular pejoratives.

The basic fact is that people find reasons to hate people. And then, people torture and kill people. And while this general fault of the human race is sometimes excused as a way of dealing with "blasphemy," it's more often used to eliminate non-cooperative persons from regimes driven by Atheistic values.

Now, there's no way that all of that's irrelevant to a discussion of "blasphemy."

[uwot]

...people torture and kill people.

True, but not on the scale that your god does it.

And while this general fault of the human race is sometimes excused as a way of dealing with "blasphemy," it's more often used to eliminate non-cooperative persons from regimes driven by Atheistic values.

And such regimes should be resisted by all decent people, religious or secular.

[nothing]

No.

The word 'you' stands for or denotes a 'person', and there is NO person that could be a "muslim". This is because a 'muslim' can not be defined in a uniformly accepted and agreed way, just like the words, "christian", "hindu", "buddhist", "america", "irish", "italian", "arab", "scientist", "preacher", "teacher", "student", also can not be defined in a uniformly accepted and agreed ways also.

If shahada = present, the concerned person is a Muslim.
If shahada = absent, the concerned person is not a Muslim.

Moreover, Muslims self-identify as both "believer" and "Muslim" viz. "believing Muslim".

Each and EVERY 'person' is uniquely the same as each and EVERY unique person in that they are ALL equally the exact same in that they are ALL uniquely different and special from each "other". That is; NO person is more than nor less than "another", and EACH person is the special one there is, just as EVERY "other" 'person' IS, as well.

Hence: it would take a believer to believe themselves superior to another.

All Muslims are believers. It would be a mistake to then assume all Muslims are supremacists, as such: all supremacists are "believers" which allows that a believing Muslim may not necessarily be a supremacist (though this is debatable given all Muslims believe a man-made book is the most supreme document on the face of the planet).

The word 'you' means a 'person' and EVERY person is the exact same in that they are uniquely different.

There is absolutely NOTHING any one can do to separate people into different and separate categories groups, although ALL 'you', adult ones 'try to' do it.

The Qur'an does: believer vs. unbeliever / "us vs. them".

So, to answer 'your' question: Are 'you' a muslim? The Answer is No. 'you' are ALL the exact same, in that 'you' are ALL uniquely different from each "other".

Does that answer 'your' question sufficiently and thoroughly enough, for 'you'?

No, but I never expected you to give a direct answer - I know not to believe you would ever do such a thing if even given a simple question, hence your evasion of it. Asking you whether or not you bear the Islamic shahada testimony is very simple: you either bear the shahada, or you do not.

Killing non-believers or non-muslims is NOT an evil nor violent act at all.

Now this will EXPOSE the ones who are OPEN from those who are CLOSED.

You are clearly insane.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My personal vision and mission for humanity is "Striving Towards Perpetual Peace."
Perpetual Peace is definitely an ideal [impossible in practice] but when ALL [if not a critical mass] strive towards perpetual peace at all times, there will be continual improvements towards the ideal with lesser and lesser evil and violent acts.

In striving towards perpetual peace humanity must address ALL potential evil and violent acts. I believe there must be changes in the brain and neural connectivity in order to promote improvement, thus the requirement of the Neurosciences, etc.
But this is the 'Philosophy of Religion' section, so I have to confine to evil and violent acts related to religion, in this case, Religious-based blasphemy.

All potential evil and violent acts cover all aspects of humanity but one critical area is morality which I have covered in our discussions in the General Section. Humanity do not need absolute moral laws [corrupted] from an illusory God in the future. Humanity can establish it own fool proof absolute moral laws for guidance within morality and ethics. Note I am not going into details on this here.

Note, why not?

If you can establish your own fool proof ABSOLUTE moral laws for guidance within morality and ethics, why do you not do this here and now, so for once and for all, this will be solved forever more?

Sounds like a very normal thing to do.

If as you propose that you can establish some laws for guidance, then go right ahead and do it. I am SURE the future of humanity would thank "veritas aequitas" for doing it for them.

I believe we have discussed the above in the appropriate Ethics Section.

Whether you disagree or not, the striving of "absolute" moral laws is ongoing within humanity as driven by its inherent neural network responsible for morality and ethics.

Note 'crudely' at present we already have 'absolute' laws regarding the Abolishment of Chattel Slavery [UN Resolution] and it is working to some extent.
It is a matter of polishing natural moral propensity and expediting the process.