General Discussion > The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion
Abolish blasphemy laws
Vikarion:
--- Quote from: Katrina Oniseki on 17 Jun 2014, 19:07 ---I read this entire thread without realizing it was about real life until I finally checked the forum.
I thought we were talking about Amarr RP.
--- End quote ---
For what it's worth, I think that Amarr is (fictionally) nicer to gays than Uganda or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is/are.
PracticalTechnicality:
--- Quote from: Ava Starfire on 17 Jun 2014, 17:24 ---I think helping remove land mines and getting potable water is a pretty cool start.
--- End quote ---
This to be honest (and not just because I have an academic interest in disaster management and the likes). Every country with the power to dictate what its people can say or do has been fairly shitty until said population has been stable enough in life security (water, food and basic employment skills) to make that approach untenable.
Hydrate, feed, educate. When those who have known suffering first hand are made strong enough to stand and eloquent enough that even classist/prejudiced segments of their society can understand their accounts, change isn't far behind.
Not to say that this is the only approach, nor the only one we should be pursuing, but being all stick and no carrot (in this case self-empowerment through necessary resource control on the part of the most vulnerable individuals in a society) has been done literally to the tune of thousand of deaths (low ball guesstimate). No reason not to push for change at the political level while pursuing a more stable situation for those affected the most, so long as it is mindful of the lash back that may occur when a state that cannot be dealt with definitively digs its heels in politically. After all, it isn't us who will suffer should hasty hard power tactics cause a crackdown.
Nicoletta Mithra:
Dawkins spoke out for placing people that believe in God and not in darwinian evolution into psychiatric institutions and to 'reeducate' them. Seems like he is in favour of blasphemy laws, if you blaspheme against his worldview...
Also, yes to what already has been said: Going somewhere and telling people they have to change the way they deal with something and expecting them to do so without helping them to develop the prerequisites to live by it (water and food, economically, education wise) is quite the smug imperialist attitude in my opinion. Also history showed time and again that it doesn't work.
Also, the right to freedom of expression ends really where it is hurting another's right to be treated according to the inborn dignity of human beings.
Nmaro Makari:
*Knock Knock*
"Hello? Anyone home? My name's Liberal Interventionism, and uh... well I'm kind of out in the cold and the moment... can I crash on your couch?"
We can't wave magic Wester-Wands and make oppression the world over stop. Intervention is justified in some significant cases, but because "they have illiberal values!" as a justification for imposing a solution, whether or not it's the right or wrong morally, is a route to making everything so much worse. You can't build out of nothing, you can't plant liberal ideas and values in a country, you have to work with what's there and cultivate it. It won't change overnight, but it will change instead of just moving sideways to a different kind of fucked-up, a la Iraq.
--- Quote from: Vikarion ---Not to put too fine a point on it, but if someone thinks that I don't have a right to live (as an atheist), why should I care if they have enough to drink? Why should I care to feed those who want to kill gay people for being born that way?
As far as I'm concerned, that whole "love your enemies" thing makes no more sense to me than the rest of the religion. I think our foreign aid should be predicated on tolerance in a society. Besides, it's not like there aren't plenty of more tolerant societies that could use our aid, and in my mind, deserve it more.
--- End quote ---
"I don't like these people or what they do. Am I going to do something to help change their outlook and maybe bring them closer to my ideas? Pfft, hell no."
V. Gesakaarin:
So how many of the states that have blasphemy laws are signatories to international human rights conventions? It might be a step in the right direction but even then, the UN and international laws have historically proven rather inadequate to prevent violations of human rights or persecution in the world by those committed to doing so.
That's aside the fact that campaigns like this have to either overcome domestic apathy in Western societies in addition to overcoming the cultural and religious conditions in countries which condone laws against blasphemy and which usually have little to no separations between church and state.
I mean, it took the West hundreds of years to separate church and state, how does signing a petition to change a frankly ineffectual piece of international treaty promise to affect actual change to promote that in other countries?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version