Atheist Alexander Aan jailed today in Indonesia

SeanW

My point is that as a Multicultural PC leftist, we in Europe have done everything you want. And in spades.

And all we've got for our trouble is hate preaching Imams, violent separatism taught in schools, hostility towards free speech, and a resurgence in the kind of guttural anti-Semitism that we had hoped we had left behind after the genocide of the Final Solution in Nazi Germany causing Jews once again to have to flee Europe for their own safety.

As a secularist, this is not what I want, because it's not my definition of a tolerant, free society.

Pushtrak

SeanW wrote: »

An equally good question is can you point to a rational argument for the legalisation of polygamy, excluding Islam and Sharia Law?

Well, lets look at marriage. One man, one woman. Gay marriage, consenting couple of same sex. I wouldn't look to argue for polygamy, but polyamory. This would be a group marriage with the individuals involved giving consent. Obviously this type of marriage would have a lot more complications than a two person one would be.

SeanW wrote: »

And of course, Step 1 in that process is embracing a fundamental aspect of Sharia Law, as demanded by people like Irish Islamic Vanguard.

I encourage you to ask fundamentalist muslims how they'd feel about their wives having multiple husbands.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

My point is that as a Multicultural PC leftist, we in Europe have done everything you want. And in spades..

Seeing as the character of each country varies so wildly, and I never listed what 'I want', its hard to gauge where your going with that comment.

SeanW wrote: »

And all we've got for our trouble is hate preaching Imams, violent separatism taught in schools, hostility towards free speech, and a resurgence in the kind of guttural anti-Semitism that we had hoped we had left behind after the genocide of the Final Solution in Nazi Germany causing Jews once again to have to flee Europe for their own safety..

And again, overstatement and hysterical exaggeration. There are problems within every community. There is anti-semitism in many more populations than the muslim, I might add.

SeanW wrote: »

As a secularist, this is not what I want, because it's not my definition of a tolerant, free society.

Your idea of a "tolerant, free society" seems to rest on demonising a minority, based on an even smaller minority. There is little point in condemning anti-semitism if its to be replaced with Islamophobia - thats merely swapping victims.

SeanW

Pushtrak wrote: »

I encourage you to ask fundamentalist muslims how they'd feel about their wives having multiple husbands.

They would view it in a dim light, I imagine, alongside a lot of Western men

Lucy8080

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Sorry, my mistake. The terminology is religious hatred, as I cited in my original post, not hatred of religion. The point I was making is that the Islamic states at UN level are moving - tactically - from the concept of defamation to the concept of hatred, but still with the same aim of trying to prevent people from criticizing Islam in ways that they believe to be insulting.

michael,

"religious hatred" not "hatred of religion". whats the difference.

both terms would decimate these boards if implemented fully by those who want to take offence. im getting the sneaking suspicion that athiest ireland is o.k. with one of em.

lets criticise everything ....even atheism.

no special protections from reasonable questions.

but, lets also recognise that we can support laws and bodies ( unwittingly) that will be an equal and opposite remover of freedoms we claim to support.

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

michael, "religious hatred" not "hatred of religion". whats the difference.

Hatred of religion would be hatred of the religion itself, rather than hatred of the people who believe in it. Religious hatred (or hatred on the grounds of religion) more typically means hatred of people, or groups of people, on the basis of their religious belief.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

both terms would decimate these boards if implemented fully by those who want to take offence. im getting the sneaking suspicion that athiest ireland is o.k. with one of em.

What is it that you think we are okay with?

Lucy8080 wrote: »

lets criticise everything ....even atheism.
no special protections from reasonable questions.

I agree with this.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

but, lets also recognise that we can support laws and bodies ( unwittingly) that will be an equal and opposite remover of freedoms we claim to support.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Lucy8080

michael,

you have qualified "hatred of religion" v "religious hatred " in terms of a person.

how did you make that leap?

laws and bodies ( religious) or laws and bodies ( athiest/secular) are still laws and bodies.

both can remove freedoms ( unwittingly) in an equal and opposite fashion to each other.

they can both be at war....and all sides can lose...equally.

short term victory usually gets a backlash...if history is anything to go by.

Lucy8080

michael,


sorry, i missed one of ur questions,in its entirety, i think!


" hatred on the grounds of religion more typically means hatred of people "...according to who?

both terms "religious hatred " or " hatred of religion " are just a play on words.

to me "atheistic/atheism" is intercahngeable with "religious/religion" here. can we not hate things that are athiestic in nature ...and yet still respect the person?

i think you answered your own question when you asked what i think you are o.k. with.

Sarky

It might be because it's 3 in the morning but you are not making any sense to me at all.

Dades

Sarky wrote: »

It might be because it's 3 in the morning but you are not making any sense to me at all.

It's not to do with the time, I assure you.

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

michael, you have qualified "hatred of religion" v "religious hatred " in terms of a person. how did you make that leap? ...

"hatred on the grounds of religion more typically means hatred of people "...according to who? both terms "religious hatred " or " hatred of religion " are just a play on words.

Religious hatred, or hatred on the grounds of religion, or religious hate crimes, are legal terms or derivatives of legal terms that are used in various jurisdictions.

For example, in Ireland, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 defines hatred (for the purposes of the Act) as being “hatred against a group of persons in the state or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.”

It makes it an offence for a person to publish or distribute or use written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, if they are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred, with an exception that you can do this inside a private residence.

There are other examples of religious (or racial or sexual orientation etc) hatred laws, some of which make inciting hatred an offence in itself, and some of which make religious (or racial or sexual orientation etc) hatred an aggravating factor in other offences.

Hatred of religion seems to me to be self-explanatory.

In this context, it is a phrase I mistakenly typed in a hurry, intending to convey religious hatred, when typing the sentence “International pressure has since caused the Islamic states to start backing away from the defamation of religion tactic, but they are now re-inventing it in the guise of incitement to hatred of religion instead of defamation of religion.”

The point I was making is that the Islamic states at UN level are moving - tactically - from the concept of defamation to the concept of hatred, but still with the same aim of trying to prevent people from criticizing Islam in ways that they believe to be insulting.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

to me "atheistic/atheism" is intercahngeable with "religious/religion" here. can we not hate things that are athiestic in nature ...and yet still respect the person?

Well, in my view (though some may disagree), "things" cannot be either religious or atheistic. People can, and ideas or beliefs can, but "things" in the sense of inanimate objects cannot.

So with that caveat, I agree that you can hate ideas or beliefs that are atheistic or religious, while still respecting the person who holds those ideas or beliefs. In fact, that is generally how I try to approach such situations.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

laws and bodies ( religious) or laws and bodies ( athiest/secular) are still laws and bodies.

both can remove freedoms ( unwittingly) in an equal and opposite fashion to each other.

they can both be at war....and all sides can lose...equally.

short term victory usually gets a backlash...if history is anything to go by.

I'm afraid I still don't understand what you mean by this.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

i think you answered your own question when you asked what i think you are o.k. with.

No, I didn't. Can you please clarify what you mean in a less cryptic way?

Lucy8080

o.k.


ill have a little bit more time at theweekend. so a quick reply , to those who claim i am inconprehensible..including a polite request from a mod.

can all you guys explain to me how you plan to protect people from being imprisoned under either of the following terms

" incitement to hatred of religion" or " religious hatred".

its not my fault you dont understand .

my efforts to explain your blindspot here....are entirely driven by your blindspot.

but , hey, mock and condescend.....whilst you ignore the obvious problem you have .

do you want this guy out of jail?

if so, why support terminology that can put him in jail?

could it be that atheist organisations can fall into the same hypocritical traps they accuse religion of?

tell me i dont make sense, or im drunk, i dont mind at all...

but please explain how you think you are making sense here!

"athiest ireland" wants to do battle with " fundamentalist islam" ...they will love that.

and "athiest ireland" wants to break this guy outta jail...whilst encouraging us to support laws that can keep him in jail.

no wonder i dont make sense. im the only one who sees a problem you guys cant face.

Sarky

I have no idea where you're getting the claims you say atheists are making. Are you reading only every second word of each post or something?

Lucy8080

sarky,

try reading the o.p.

hope that helps.

Pushtrak

Lucy8080 wrote: »

OK, I'll have a little bit more time at the weekend. So, a quick reply to those who claim I am incomprehensible, including a polite request from a mod.

Can all you guys explain to me how you plan to protect people from being imprisoned under either of the following terms: "Incitement to hatred of religion" or "religious hatred"?

It's not my fault you don't understand. My efforts to explain your blind spot here are entirely driven by your blind spot. But hey, mock and condescend while you ignore the obvious problem you have.

Do you want this guy out of jail? If so, why support terminology that can put him in jail? Could it be that atheist organisations can fall in to the same hypocritical traps they accuse religion of? Tell me I don't make sense or I'm drunk, I don't mind at all. But please explain how you think you are making sense here!

'Atheist Ireland wants to do battle with fundamentalist Islam, they will love that, and Atheist Ireland wants us to break this guy out of jail while encouraging us to support laws that can keep him in jail. No wonder I don't make sense. I'm the only one who sees a problem you guys can't face.

Your next post suggests reading the OP. Ok, lets look at it.

Cases like this also show the urgency of Ireland repealing our own new blasphemy law. Islamic states led by Pakistan have praised the new Irish law at the United Nations. And when the Indonesian blasphemy law was constitutionally challenged in 2010, the existence of the new Irish blasphemy law was cited in its support.

Alexander Aan is a 32-year-old Indonesian civil servant who started an atheist group on Facebook on which he published articles about Mohammad and questioned the existence of God. He was beaten up by his work colleagues then arrested for blasphemy. He was today jailed for two and a half years and fined Rp 100m (about $10,000).

Aan was originally charged with blasphemy and persuading others to embrace atheism, but was instead convicted under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law of deliberately spreading information inciting religious hatred and animosity.

This shows the dangers of mixing the ideas of blasphemy and incitement to religious hatred, as prosectors can easily interchange one with the other. The law should protect people, not ideas. And it should protect people from actual harm, but not from being offended.

Michael has later expanded on that:

Religious hatred, or hatred on the grounds of religion, or religious hate crimes, are legal terms or derivatives of legal terms that are used in various jurisdictions.

Alexander Aan is in jail because he said he is an atheist, in essence. Normally this would be blasphemy under Islamic law, but instead he is being charged under incitement of hatred. Atheist Ireland is against all laws that would protect free speech, particularly where religion is concerned.

Do you understand now?

Lucy8080

o.k.


i see the o.p. has been edited.

how come if i edit, it shows ive edited....but with some posters there is never an indication of editing, is it membership?


pushtrak,

if you think i want this guy in jail , orr am supporting anything that could keep him there, you are missing the point here.

you may actually be supporting ideas that will uphold his imprisonment.


thats me tonite, off to bed.

Pushtrak

Lucy8080 wrote: »

o.k.


i see the o.p. has been edited.

The OP wasn't edited. It would say if it were. I edited your previous to be more readable (within my own post). I'm not going to do that for every post you do though.

how come if i edit, it shows ive edited....but with some posters there is never an indication of editing, is it membership?

If you edit your post fast, it doesn't show. You have a bit of time to edit your post before it'll show that thing at the bottom.

pushtrak,

if you think i want this guy in jail , orr am supporting anything that could keep him there, you are missing the point here.

you may actually be supporting ideas that will uphold his imprisonment.


thats me tonite, off to bed.

I don't think you are supporting his imprisonment. I think you are failing to understand what this thread is saying and its intent.

Lucy8080

im definitely going to bed now,

michael , was the o.p. edited?

be honest, please.

Corkfeen

Lucy8080 wrote: »

im definitely going to bed now,

michael , was the o.p. edited?

be honest, please.

If a post is edited a timestamp will appear at the bottom of the post indicating the edit (unless done pretty much immediately after posting). No timestamp =no edit, Michael doesn't have special powers...

Dades

Lucy8080 wrote: »

im definitely going to bed now,

michael , was the o.p. edited?

be honest, please.

No it wasn't.

Lucy8080

dades,

i know what i read in that opening post. one phrase was an emotional "phrase" and i dont blame michael. we are all human ...and i think that a lot of atheists could learn a lot from from michael in the way he responds to posters like myself.

but , i know a particular "word" has been removed.

that word is secondary to my arguments.....i still believe that word should not be held against michael or athiest ireland...

but that post was changed...i know....because i have sympathy with michael and i know he must have wrote it in the heat of the moment rather than intentionally.

Pushtrak

Lucy8080 wrote: »

dades,

i know what i read in that opening post. one phrase was an emotional "phrase" and i dont blame michael. we are all human ...and i think that a lot of atheists could learn a lot from from michael in the way he responds to posters like myself.

but , i know a particular "word" has been removed.

that word is secondary to my arguments.....i still believe that word should not be held against michael or athiest ireland...

but that post was changed...i know....because i have sympathy with michael and i know he must have wrote it in the heat of the moment rather than intentionally.

Any edits show up*. If a mod were to edit my post it would show up as edited by that mod.

(If a mod wishes to say something here, and have this show up to prove the point, by all means, do so)

*Unless you caught the post within the first minute of the post being up. Did that happen?

Lucy8080

b.t.w,


i asked michael, the author, was the o.p. edited.

not anybody else.

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

i asked michael, the author, was the o.p. edited. not anybody else.

If you want to speak with Michael alone, then you can send him a Private Message (top-right-hand corner). Otherwise, well, you're speaking in a public place and anybody is free to join in the conversation as and when they wish.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

i know a particular "word" has been removed. [...] but that post was changed...i know....

Here's how boards works -- a poster submits a reply to a topic by clicking on the "Submit Reply" button and one's deathless prose is delivered to boards.ie for all to admire. The poster has two minutes to make minor edits, usually spelling and grammar, and these minor edits are referred to as "ninjaedits" since they happen quickly and seemingly invisibly. After the expiration of this two minute period, any further edits will be tagged with the phrase "Last edited by [username] at [yyyy-mm-dd] at [hh:mm]" which appears beneath the post -- see this post in this thread to see what an edited post looks like. It is conventional on boards to allow people these two minutes to make any ninjaedits they want to, and forum members will reply to the ninja-edited post, not the original one. People can and do make small mistakes in what they post and forum members will respect that -- boards.ie software does what it can to help make it a forgiving place. In cases where the post was subsequently edited, some forum members may reply to the unedited post, and some to the edited one, as they wish.

Michael's original post ("OP") is not tagged with a "Last edited by ..." note, so we can conclude safely that Michael did not edit his post beyond two minutes after he first posted it. And even if he did edit it during this two minute period, then forum convention dictates that you ignore the original post and comment on the edited version only. As many posters have pointed out to you patiently, and Dades has pointed out to you less patiently.

That is all -- please drop this topic.

Michael Nugent

Lucy8080 wrote: »

michael , was the o.p. edited? be honest, please.

No, it wasn't edited.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

dades, i know what i read in that opening post. one phrase was an emotional "phrase" and i dont blame michael. we are all human ...and i think that a lot of atheists could learn a lot from from michael in the way he responds to posters like myself.

but , i know a particular "word" has been removed.

that word is secondary to my arguments.....i still believe that word should not be held against michael or athiest ireland...

but that post was changed...i know....because i have sympathy with michael and i know he must have wrote it in the heat of the moment rather than intentionally.

I have no idea what word or phrase you think you was removed, but you are obviously sincere about this so I would like to to see if we can resolve it.

Did you read anything else that I posted around the same time?
Did you read anything by any other posters using that word or phrase?
Was it something from the video included in the original post?

Or just tell me what word or phrase you think was removed, and we can discuss that issue rather than the non-editing of the post.

Michael Nugent

robindch wrote: »

That is all -- please drop this topic.

Robin, I agree with you about dropping the topic of whether or not the post was edited.

But I'm happy to discuss my opinions about the word or phrase itself (that Lucy thinks was removed), if she wants to let us know what it is.

Michael Nugent

Oh, and while we are discussing the original post, can I remind everyone to please, if you haven't already done so, contact the Toaiseach, Tanaiste and Indonesian authorities about Alexander Aan's conviction?

It will only take you a few minutes, and it will contribute to an international campaign on this issue coordinated by atheist and other rights-based groups around the world.

Fortyniner

I've sent this today, to indonesianconsul@ireland.com


'I have read today that this man has been jailed for two and a half years merely for expressing his belief that there is no god.

I implore you to note that this is not regarded as a crime in the developed world, and that this has changed unfavourably my view of your country, despite having met many reasonable and charming Indonesians. If anyone within your government can ever provide conclusive evidence of the existence of god then many people will support your government's view.

In the meantime, the rest of the developed world looks at you with astonishment and disgust. Your people have a reputation for tolerance and friendliness - this reputation is now badly damaged.

There must be a way to effect this man's release from prison. I implore you to use your influence to bring this about.'

Lucy8080

o.k.,

i thanked the o.p. , i know why i thanked it ,and i know what was in that o.p.! i didnt fully agree with.

im not gonna be handled around here.

michael and robin seem to be sooooo in tune with each other ...

i didnt fall out of yesterdays rain.

The Mad Hatter

You're the only one who cares what anyone thanks.