Or something like it somewhere like the US.

except it is nothing alike.

She killed somebody for not believing in her god. That's the core fact here, like it or not.

From the article:

I wouldn't say murdering people on the say-so of your invisible friend is much more sane in Pakistan than it is in Arizona.

Almost the mirror image of something. Can you guess what it is?

A woman in Arizona killed somebody for insulting her invisible friend, and we seem to agree she's crazy.

The Pakistanis killed somebody for insulting their invisible friend, and I haven't noticed you saying they're crazy. Can we agree they're crazy for doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason? If not, why not?

How about the 13 religious countries where blasphemy is punishable by death? Can we agree they're crazy for doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason? If not, why not?

We've got to define positions first. How many murderers have to be involved in killing people for blasphemy before it seems reasonable to you?

The woman was described as having mental issues.

And you previously described theism as evidence of a mental problem.

I start off with the premise she's not quite right and post a story which mentions her mental health issues. You post the quote from that story about her mental health issues and then repeat it in a post where you explicitly say we can't agree she's nuts. How the heck can we both say she's got mental health issues and somehow not agree that she's got mental health issues? Seriously. How is that possible?

Still, the question remains, if one theist murders somebody for blasphemy, we're going to hear about the "lone gunman" crazy person scenario. How about if it's a dozen? An entire nation? What if it's a church instead of a government body? At what point does murdering somebody over blasphemy seem "sane" to you?

After all, if I can misinterpret you saying the same thing I did as agreement, I'd hate to misrepresent what you view as sane.

And given your mindset, what am I, a theist, to think when talking with you?

Personally, I would say that your equating theism with mental illness says a lot about you and nothing about theism.

Or are you saying I'm right?

Or are you saying murder over blasphemy is sane but only if you're the one bothered by it?

Pick one, please.

Let's get this down, hows that definition you've been doing everything in your power to not come up with?

He's put himself in a position where he has to say either that those theists murdering people for blasphemy really are nuts; or he can say that murdering people for blasphemy is perfectly sane, which he knows is nuts.

So he chooses the third option and refuses to commit himself.

Like painting one's self into a corner, or finding yourself on the side of defending Nazis.

Why do you feel the need to misstate what I said?

you did. Did you not mean to? perhaps you should clarify.

You seem to be reading a different message board from all of us, yet posting it here. I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion, yet you persist on the insistence that you are the only one right instead of correcting anything. Just digging deeper.

maybe, just maybe, the problem is you. Don't you think it's odd how everyone else manages to make their meaning clear, and you're the only one with this issue? Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

In the Arizona story, we are talking about someone who had a diagnosed mental illness, who may not even be responsible for her own actions. In Pakistan, we are talking about an abhorrent cultural practice. That's the real problem with religion, at least the way it is practiced in places like Pakistan. It can make otherwise normal people do terrible things. And they are definitely responsible for their actions.

Although the argument that religion can often merely duplicate the effects of insanity is not exactly a ringing endorsement, if you'll forgive my observation.

Just as a way of making our terms clear. And if we no longer do the same to blasphemers here, it's not because of any advantage to Christianity, but because of the Enlightment.

Obviously the hardliners think that desecrating the remains of a blasphemer is somehow important. It's a mitzvah, so to speak, in a horrid perversion of the term.

In other words, to defile a body is something to be avoided, it's a hurt, it's a wound, and hardliners believe this. Or else why bother to blow up the body. It's not like this is a shrine where pilgrims come from far and wide to worship.

Yet I keep hearing the opposite. That defiling a corpse is meaningless to hardliners.

It's a strange contradiction. If not, what am I missing?


At the same time, this is little more than a group policing its own boundaries. The killing of a blasphemer, the shunning of a blasphemer, the excommunication of a heretical party member, the banning of somebody who merely shares a deviant idea are just points on a continuum. It teaches those entertaining such ideas to rein in their thoughts; it punishes those who disagree with the group.

not doing things worthy of criticism, like killing critics. Especially since they would be first in line to complain if Muslims were killed for criticizing other religions. Hypocrites, killing in the name of a god unworthy of worship if he allows/blesses/demands killing for religious bigotry.

... 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah'.

https://m.