freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 7:47pm:


You'd be opening yourself up for a good libel case.   

|dev|null wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:


What are you rabbiting on about?  Calls to silence?  You are making less sense than your usual moronic word salads.

Quote:


Yes.

Quote:


What if he insisted he was actually a freedom fighter?

Quote:


So what does count? Do different laws apply to the internet?

|dev|null wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:


Where are these calls?


And is it not true that the Organisation of Islamic Conference is calling for the criminalisation of criticism of Islam?


CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS THE AUSTRALIAN MARCH 09, 2009 12:00AM


THE Muslim religion makes unusually large claims for itself. All religions do this, of course, in that they claim to know and to be able to interpret the wishes of a supreme being.

But Islam affirms itself as the last and final revelation of God's word, the consummation of all the mere glimpses of the truth vouchsafed to all the foregoing faiths, available by way of the unimprovable, immaculate text of "the recitation", or Koran.

If there sometimes seems to be something implicitly absolutist or even totalitarian in such claims, it may result not from a fundamentalist reading of the holy book but from the religion itself.

And it is the so-called mainstream Muslims, grouped in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, who are now demanding through the UN that Islam not only be allowed to make such absolutist claims, but that it be officially shielded from any criticism as aresult.

Although written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, the non-binding UN Resolution 62/154, on "combating defamation of religions", seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being "offended".

The preamble is jam-packed with hypocrisies that are hardly even laughable, as in this delicious paragraph, stating that the UN General Assembly: "Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions, beliefs and civilisations, and welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Program of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on September 3 and 4, 2007."

Yes, I think we can see where we are going with that. The stipulations that follow this turgid preamble are even more tendentious, and become more so as the resolution unfolds.

For example, paragraph five "expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism", while paragraph six "notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001".

You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the UN, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban forces to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 150km or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to sharia law.

And this capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings.

Yet the religion of those who carry out the campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" that faith with human rights violations or terrorism. In paragraph six, an obvious attempt is being made to confuse ethnicity with religious allegiance. Indeed this insinuation (incidentally dismissing the faith-based criminality of September 11 as merely tragic) is in fact essential to the entire scheme. If religion and race can be run together, then the condemnations that racism axiomatically attracts can be surreptitiously extended to religion, too.

This is clumsy, but it works: the useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success.

Just to be clear, a phobia is an irrational and unconquerable fear or dislike. However, some of us can explain with relative calm why we think faith is the most overrated of the virtues. (Don't be calling us phobic unless you want us to start whining that we have been offended.)

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2013 at 10:17am:


Out of a matter of interest do you read Yadda's posts, Soren?

You might find what you're seeking in there.   His style is more direct that yours but like yours it is intimidatory.   Your religious persecution are well known.   Do you ever wonder why so few Muslims post here?  MMmm?   

Quote:


Sounds a bit like Gandalf really.

Quote:


One of the Muslims accused me of intimidation recently also. Is it just coincidence that this happened around the same time that Gandalf blindly asserted that if a person feels intimidated it must be illegal?

Gandalf, just to clarify, when you said this:

Quote:


You meant that it should be perfectly legal to accuse Muhammed of having sex with little girls and also to accuse Muslims of loving what Muhammed did, but it should be illegal to make any conclusions from this?

Brian, what would you call it if a 50 year old man married a six year old girl, and each night he rubbed his penis between her legs until he ejaculated on her?

What would you call it if a religious leader promoted this behaviour?