Islam Is Going To Be Omitted In Bangladesh As State Religion

[real islam]

A new rule is going to be framed in Parliament of Bangladesh. All of the religious parties will be banned. "Bismillahir Rahmaner Rahim' will be cut off from the constitution.Islam will be omitted as state religion of the country. A proposal has been stated in Parliament . Most of the M.P. have supported the proposal.

[RegularAmericanGuy]

Do you consider this development good or bad?

[Lionel]

Good, of course. Every citizen must have the right to believe whatever they want or believe in no religion. Every citizen is also entitled to say in public that they consider all religions or specific religions rubbish. Completely secular democracy is the only viable way to go and cost my ancestors much blood and suffering to achieve. No aspect of it is up for amendment.

[RegularAmericanGuy]

Thank you for the response. Lionel, do you feel this is the prevailing opinion in the muslim world or the minority opinion? I think one of my disconnects with the culture is this point right here. I believe that the majority of muslims are against the violence of the extremists. However if you pose the question, do I feel that most muslims are in favor of free speech and freedom of religion, I'm less certain. Which is one of the reasons I came to this site, to learn more.

[Ron]

Hi RegularAmericanGuy,

Welcome to the forum. I'd like to get an idea of how "free" you believe freedom of speech should be. Would yelling fire in a crowded location be ok? How about saying you wanted to harm the president? What about denying the Holocaust? What about inciting a riot? Or urging the topple of the government? What if someone wants to express what he'd like to do to your children or mom or sister etc...?

I only ask because I think a clear line should be stated and the reason behind it. From there a more constructive dialog can be had.

[RegularAmericanGuy]

Fair question Ron. And I assure you my intention is not to argue but to understand. I respect your right to disagree with me. That being said I feel that speech stating an opinion is free. So denying the holocaust is just as protected as insulting mohammed or islam. As far as I am concerned, and the laws of the United States are concerned, President or not, it is not legal to communicate threats. So saying you will harm President is not protected, however saying you would like to is. Make sense? Those are pretty cut and dry for me. Where it gets a little tricky is with yelling fire, inciting a riot, and urging the overthrow of a government. The standard I would apply is how will a reasonable person react to what is being said. For example, yelling fire in crowded space will cause a reasonable person to run for the exit, therefore it is not protected. Insulting a religion will cause a reasonable person to be offended not to act violently therefore it is protected.

[mimis]

Insulting a religion will cause a reasonable person to be offended not to act violently therefore it is not protected.

I assume that you did not mean to include the word 'not' in 'therefore it is not protected', otherwise your post makes little sense. So I will read that sentence as follows:

"Insulting a religion will cause a reasonable person to be offended not to act violently therefore it is protected [speech]."

But then, since muslims believe that blasphemy is punishable by death, either (1) there is no such person as a "reasonable muslim", or (2) your conclusion is wrong, and the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as not protecting insults to Islam.

[RegularAmericanGuy]

I did mean that it is protected. If it is true that all muslims believe that blasphemers should be put to death then I would say there is no such thing as a reasonable muslim. However, I doubt that is the case. The US Constitution does not protect you from being offended, in fact it preserves your right to offend. I would further propose that blasphemy is punishable by death only if you believe in the followings of Islam. As a nonfollow how can I be held accountable to the beliefs of followers?

[mimis]

I did mean that it is protected. If it is true that all muslims believe that blasphemers should be put to death then I would say there is no such thing as a reasonable muslim. However, I doubt that is the case. The US Constitution does not protect you from being offended, in fact it preserves your right to offend. I would further propose that blasphemy is punishable by death only if you believe in the followings of Islam. As a nonfollow how can I be held accountable to the beliefs of followers?

Interestingly, blasphemy is clearly punishable by death in the Bible, but today few Christians or Jews seem to accept that. On the other hand, consider that Islam is only about 1400 years old. When Christianity was that old, blasphemers were routinely being executed by Christians.

But your statement "If it is true that all muslims believe that blasphemers should be put to death then I would say there is no such thing as a reasonable muslim" does not really answer the question I posed. As there are Islamic countries that have capital punishment for blasphemy, clearly some (and probably many) muslims believe that blasphemers should be put to death. And, most likely, there are some muslims living in the U.S. who share that belief. Do you therefore agree that none of those U.S.-based muslims can be considered to be "reasonable".

[Ron]

Fair question Ron. And I assure you my intention is not to argue but to understand. I respect your right to disagree with me.

Thank you. As of right now I don't think I've said anything in disagreement. I'm just trying to understand your position.

That being said I feel that speech stating an opinion is free.

We agree. However, does that mean no consequences?

So denying the holocaust is just as protected as insulting mohammed or islam.

In the U.S. neither is. However, in parts of Europe there are laws against Holocaust denial. They have their reasons. So we can say that "free speech" isn't free in the absolute sense.

As far as I am concerned, and the laws of the United States are concerned, President or not, it is not legal to communicate threats.

This is incorrect. I believe it depends on the state. For instance, California has a law Penal Code 422. In the case of the President, it would have to be a "true threat."

So saying you will harm President is not protected, however saying you would like to is. Make sense?

Yes, makes sense but I would still refer you to my previous response.

Where it gets a little tricky is with yelling fire, inciting a riot, and urging the overthrow of a government. The standard I would apply is how will a reasonable person react to what is being said. For example, yelling fire in crowded space will cause a reasonable person to run for the exit, therefore it is not protected.

I meant to write falsely yelling fire. Sorry. We agree that that is protected.

Where it gets a little tricky is with yelling fire, inciting a riot, and urging the overthrow of a government.

Again, it depends on the situation. Check the Gitlow case and others.

The standard I would apply is how will a reasonable person react to what is being said.

We're all humans. Some may be reasonable most of the time but there may be something that triggers behavior unbecoming. An example is what I asked about regarding someone stating they wanted to harm your children etc... A reasonable person may behave differently (depending on the person) to such instigation.

If it is true that all muslims believe that blasphemers should be put to death then I would say there is no such thing as a reasonable muslim. However, I doubt that is the case.

You would be correct. In fact, Islam says no such thing.

I would further propose that blasphemy is punishable by death only if you believe in the followings of Islam. As a nonfollow how can I be held accountable to the beliefs of followers?

Since we established that it's not true then we can strike that notion. Furthermore, you wouldn't be held accountable.

None of this was to defend the actions of people who behaved contrary to the teachings of Islam. With nearly 2 billion Muslims it is interesting that less than 1% of 1% taint the rest.

The point of asking the questions is that you seem to agree that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Which then leads us to the matter of freedom of speech being based on a value judgment. What makes your concept of freedom of speech more important than that of a person that believes in something else being more important?

I think we generally agree but there should be a clarification as to what we stand for.

[RegularAmericanGuy]

Interestingly, blasphemy is clearly punishable by death in the Bible, but today few Christians or Jews seem to accept that. On the other hand, consider that Islam is only about 1400 years old. When Christianity was that old, blasphemers were routinely being executed by Christians.

But your statement "If it is true that all muslims believe that blasphemers should be put to death then I would say there is no such thing as a reasonable muslim" does not really answer the question I posed. As there are Islamic countries that have capital punishment for blasphemy, clearly some (and probably many) muslims believe that blasphemers should be put to death. And, most likely, there are some muslims living in the U.S. who share that belief. Do you therefore agree that none of those U.S.-based muslims can be considered to be "reasonable".

The books of the bible that prescribe death for blasphemy are in the Old Testament, as a Christian I follow the New Testament which teaches us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. A standard we Christians struggle with for sure but none the less that is the teaching. As for Islamic countries that have capital punsihment for blasphemy, I find that barbaric. Freedom of both speech and religion are central to the American value system and way of life. I'm sure you are correct in that there are muslims living in America that feel blasphemy should be punishable by death, I would call them unreasonable. I would also suggest that muslims born and raised in America have a different outlook on these issues than muslims born in the middle east. My main question for you Mimis is do you feel that non muslims should be held accountable to the laws and traditions of muslims? In my opinion, as a non muslim I should not be held to those standards. I'm not sure where you live, but if you lived in America how would you feel if a law was passed requiring all babies to be baptized, would you think that was fair or reasonable?

[RegularAmericanGuy]

Ron,

Are there no consequences, of course not. Protest and boycott are completely acceptable means to show disagreement. I would point you to the recent Chick Fila situation as an example of appropriate reaction and consequence by an offended party.

I would agree that in certain situations speech is not free. However, I would argue that those European countries are in the wrong for making it illegal to deny the holocaust. Again just because something is offensive shouldn't mean it can't be said.

We do seem to agree Ron, on most things. However, Mimis seems to disagree. My question is who holds the majority opinion among muslims? My guess, and I could be wrong, is that most muslims would say that non muslims do not have the right to insult islam or the prophet. Not that they would support buring down an embassy but the message being that even non muslims should conform to the rules of islam.

[Ratatosk]

Which is one of the reasons I came to this site, to learn more.

Welcome to the forum, RealAmericanGuy. I hope you have a pleasant stay with us.

You have a noble reason for your endeavour. I hope you will find answers to all your questions. Again, welcome to this corner of the Internet.

[RegularAmericanGuy]

thank you Rataosk... i look forward to learning and perhaps doing a little teaching.

[mimis]

As for Islamic countries that have capital punsihment for blasphemy, I find that barbaric. Freedom of both speech and religion are central to the American value system and way of life. I'm sure you are correct in that there are muslims living in America that feel blasphemy should be punishable by death, I would call them unreasonable. . . . My main question for you Mimis is do you feel that non muslims should be held accountable to the laws and traditions of muslims? In my opinion, as a non muslim I should not be held to those standards. I'm not sure where you live, but if you lived in America how would you feel if a law was passed requiring all babies to be baptized, would you think that was fair or reasonable?

I think we are in complete agreement. Every religion over the centuries has tried to silence, often with murder, the 'blasphemers', because a religion has no other rational way of establishing its primacy. Note that you don't see biologists jumping up and down, yelling "evolution is great!, evolution is wonderful!" and murdering creationists.