What's new

Alleged blasphemy: Mob burns 100 Christian homes in Lahore

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
The moment one hears something ''insulting'' and one reacts with anger and bloodshot eyes, its 1) conditioning since childhood. 2) mob mentality and 3) lack of critical thinking education.

Religion fundamentally and officially promotes this by 1) obligatory training since childhood, 2) by organizing in mobs and 3) by terming critical thinking ''blasphemy'' and forcing to believe ancient books as ''gods'' word.

Hence all the apologists saying this is not linked to religion are offering really lame excuses without understanding how these things are an outcome even if not a direct prescription. But then these apologists are victims of all of the above too.

By organizing in mobs - you probably are referring to men collecting in large numbers for prayers...right? there's a very simple solution for it - Men and Women should pray together - this will result in a more harmonious prayer experience - every other religion does that. But very highly unlikely that Muslims would accept that.
 
.
Good post, you have nicely summed up in a nutshell why organized religion is detrimental to society, and why this problem of violent outbursts will continue, unless changes occur that fundamentally alter the way how people think. Through a reformation that encompasses and implores educational, political, and psychological transformations. Just saying 'Islam is a religion of peace' is a mockery these days.



Your question has substance. But only if the other side is willing to employ logical reasoning. Looking at the pictures with those enraged and violent rioters, do you honestly think that they will listen to reason? No, they are completely brainwashed, devoid of any rational thinking, who can be charged up, with emotional ranting and demagogue, to attack anyone who 'insults' Islam.
The mere presence of non-Muslims in their midst is blasphemous to them. How can you reason with such people, who will slit your throat without the slightest provocation?

Coming back to your question. What you say is correct. It is impossible to protect the religious sentiments of the Muslim on one side and the Christian one on the other side, while still insisting that people may not criticize either beliefs.
For example, the very distinctive position that Muhammad takes in Islam is itself a direct contravention of the religious beliefs of billions of others, just like Jesus being the Son of God in Christianity is an affront to millions of Muslims. There is thus no way of protecting religion from blasphemy without actually banning the very expression of religious beliefs themselves.

Agreed, and hence it was always about religious supremacy and dominance. The way some people simply say XYZ is an islamic country hence things will be different there, or simply and casually insult other religions at the same time becoming livid if someone else returns the favor is all about dominance, about supremacy, about looking down upon others.

Some people say this in a civil way, some live in christian or buddhist or hindu dominated secular countries and yet say it openly. But its a question of degree only, of being civil. The supremacism is implicit in organised religions, the mob mentality part and parcel. But the victims of religion are singularly incapable of acknowledging it, even the well meaning ones.

Hence you always hear them discussing the symptoms. After all their ''critical thinking'' is bound by inviolable ancient books.
 
.
the horror! consternation it! Islamists it!

it is not an Islamic phenomenon! Islamist phenomenon!

Islam respects - non-Muslims!

Islamist is not respecting - the whole world.


What group attacked? is a Wahhabi?
 
. .
Just in case to let you know the nations created in the name of ideologies results in more death and destruction-
Yup. Whether its Nazism, Fascism, Islamic extremism, Hindu extremism, Communism, Capitalism. List goes on and on.
 
. .
Akram Gill, a local bishop in the Lahore Christian community, said the incident had more to do with personal enmity between two men - one Christian and one Muslim - than blasphemy. He said the men got into a brawl after drinking late one night, and in the morning the Muslim man made up the blasphemy story as payback
.

We see this over and over and over again - If there was no such thing as blasphemy laws, then it could not be used as a tool of personal enmity nor as a tool to divide society -
 
.
.

We see this over and over and over again - If there was no such thing as blasphemy laws, then it could not be used as a tool of personal enmity nor as a tool to divide society -

The thing with highly polarizing laws is - ones created, these are almost impossible to destroy.
 
.
the horror! consternation it! Islamists it!

it is not an Islamic phenomenon! Islamist phenomenon!

Islam respects - non-Muslims!

Islamist is not respecting - the whole world.


What group attacked? is a Wahhabi?

people like you inspire me to write a very long list of faults and blackholes in your country/society...
will you stop acting all holy and look in the mirror?
 
.
people like you inspire me to write a very long list of faults and blackholes in your country/society...
will you stop acting all holy and look in the mirror?

friend ..! Is the 100 Christians are guilty? vaAllahi why do so?
 
.
Why Zardari isn't forced to resign due to this?

Cause Zardari couldn't care less for pakistan. More trouble in Lahore more his political opponents look bad.Bottom line for all these in pakistani politics is winning no matter what the cost.
 
.
There were no CHRISTIANS in the crowd burning homes, right? So if Pakistanis want peace conversion to Christianity should be encouraged, yes? Isn't that the message of the mob?
 
.
There were no CHRISTIANS in the crowd burning homes, right? So if Pakistanis want peace conversion to Christianity should be encouraged, yes? Isn't that the message of the mob?

you are funny :lol:
 
.
Yup. Whether its Nazism, Fascism, Islamic extremism, Hindu extremism, Communism, Capitalism. List goes on and on.

I believe these two odds are there just to balance things out- otherwise i see no reason for them to be in the list of things that can create independant nations-

isn't religion also an ideology ?

It is- but in context how many times it resulted in creating a nation-
If these ideologies are to be set as an benchmark then there is no need for 196 or so countries-
Only Christian- Muslim- Hindu- Jew et all country would be enough-
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom