SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Reuters:
A Pakistani counter-terrorism court has sentenced to death a man who allegedly committed blasphemy on Facebook, a government prosecutor said on Sunday, the first time someone has been handed the death penalty for blaspheming on social media.
[...] Shafiq Qureshi, public prosecutor in Bahawalpur, about 500km (300 miles) south of provincial capital Lahore, said Raza was convicted for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammad, his wives and companions.
"An anti terrorism court of Bahawalpur has awarded him the death sentence," Qureshi told Reuters." It is the first ever death sentence in a case that involves social media."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Pakistan Sentences Man to Death for Blasphemy on Facebook
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 139 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 12 2017, @02:04PM (2 children)
Not so. The fundamentals of Christianity have shifted over the centuries, no?
Thankfully, most modern-day Christians are pretty good at doing the folk-theological gymnastics necessary to disown the nastier parts of their holy book. You'd be right to point out that modern liberal Christianity is liberal despite its holy text, and not because of its holy text, but that's just the point: the real-world manifestation of the religion is what really matters, and it's subject to change.
The rest of your comment doesn't really speak to this topic, but anyway:
Sure. So what? Who's claiming that any society is perfect?
Well, not really, no. If the intent was to kill as many muslims as possible, the Iraqi body count would have dwarfed the approx. 120,000 that resulted (as tragic as that figure is). It is also plain to see that the intent wasn't to convert anyone to Christianity. Bush did indeed couch his motivations in religious language, but that's about the extent of it. Disastrous as it was, the Iraq War was decidedly not a crusade. An oil war, or a war based on poor-quality intelligence, or an ill-advised effort to topple a tyrant, perhaps, but not a religious crusade.
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Monday June 12 2017, @02:37PM (1 child)
If the real-world manifestation is subject to change, I'd assume it is per definition not fundamental, and therefore cannot be the base of a fundamental incompatibility. The text of the sharia is incompatible with our western values, the laws in some countries, based on this sharia, are therefore also incompatible. But the interpretation of the law is apparently fluid and can be adapted to public perception, otherwise we would see way more executions. Therefore I agree there are incompatibilities between western culture and muslim countries, but seeing how Christianity manages to cope with democracy and capitalism, I dispute that these incompatibilities are fundamental.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 12 2017, @02:46PM
I don't softball sharia law: it's always awful and always incompatible with modern civilized values. You're right though that there is some room for interpretation, such as sharia countries which give people 'whippings' so tame as not to leave a mark. It would be comical if it weren't so medieval.
Right. I just apply the same thing to Islam too. While I don't deny that most of modern global Islam is incompatible with civilized values, it's not always that way, and a religion's brand isn't really tied to any set of fundamental values (as odd as that might seem).