Blasphemers face death penalty for bathroom graffiti

[Jack of Kent]

Four children and a 45-year-old fifth suspect face charges of writing blasphemous material in the latrines of a mosque.

I understand that under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, blasphemy in Pakistan is punishable by death or life imprisonment.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/pakistan/59289.htm (http://www.sindhtoday.net/pakistan/59289.htm)

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C02%5C04%5Cstory_4-2-2009_pg7_15 (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C02%5C04%5Cstory_4-2-2009_pg7_15)

[bobdezon]

The principal of the Superior Science Academy – where the children studied – said he had asked the children to pray in the mosque, but told them to leave the academy after he saw the blasphemous writing. Asked how he knew they were guilty, he said: “Muslims cannot do such things” so it must be the Ahmadi children

::)

So being a muslim totally prevents vandalism?

Ah religion, it is amazing how it still induces idiocy upon the masses.

[Croydon Bob]

So being a muslim totally prevents vandalism?
If only that were true, there would be a lot less vandalism of Jewish graveyards in the UK.

[newatheist]

Don't they have a reputation for vadalision 'idols'?

[Antipositor]

The principal of the Superior Science Academy – where the children studied – said he had asked the children to pray in the mosque, but told them to leave the academy after he saw the blasphemous writing. Asked how he knew they were guilty, he said: “Muslims cannot do such things” so it must be the Ahmadi children

::)

So being a muslim totally prevents vandalism?

Ah religion, it is amazing how it still induces idiocy upon the masses.
It wasn't so long ago (1536) that William Tyndale translated the Bible into English and was slowly tortured to death for about 3 days and then burned at the stake for his "blasphemies." But that was before the separation of Church and State. What a difference a little objectivity can make.

[Jack of Kent]

It wasn't so long ago (1536) that William Tyndale translated the Bible into English and was slowly tortured to death for about 3 days and then burned at the stake for his "blasphemies." But that was before the separation of Church and State. What a difference a little objectivity can make.

When did this separation of Church and State take place?

[Antipositor]

When did this separation of Church and State take place?
I believe the trend began in the 1530's with Henry VIII.

[Jack of Kent]

But when did the separation occur?

And how did the the King actually making himself head of the English Church mean that a "trend" towards separation began?

Do you really have any idea what you are writing about?

[DrS]

I believe the trend began in the 1530's with Henry VIII.What, when the Anglican Church was set up as the established Church of England which is still headed by the monarch?

Edit: sorry, JofK, realize it's what you said yourself but I'm baffled about this separation ...

[Antipositor]

What, when the Anglican Church was set up as the established Church of England which is still headed by the monarch?

Edit: sorry, JofK, realize it's what you said yourself but I'm baffled about this separation ...
I'm baffled that you're unfamiliar with this basic tenet of modern liberal democracies.

I'll post the link again: The separation of church and state.

[Antipositor]

But when did the separation occur?

And how did the the King actually making himself head of the English Church mean that a "trend" towards separation began?

Do you really have any idea what you are writing about?
Wonderful rebuttal there.

[chaggle]

Ban 'im Jonno!

:admin:

[DrS]

I'm baffled that you're unfamiliar with this basic tenet of modern liberal democracies.

I'll post the link again: The separation of church and state.
The English Church is not disestablished, nor does the article you have linked to claim it is. In fact, I cannot see why you have linked to it at all unless you are confusing a well-known concept with actual fact.

[Croydon Bob]

Everything Antipositor has posted on this forum has been garbage. He/she/it is a troll and a none-too-bright one at that.


Wonderful rebuttal there.

The troll is so clueless that it still doesn't understand, even when Jack tries to help it along!

[Croydon Bob]

I'll post the link again: The separation of church and state.

Posting links to things that don't say what you think they say. Just like SorryImPsycho. Funny that.

[Trinoc]

Posting links to things that don't say what you think they say. Just like SorryImPsycho. Funny that.
No ... if Antipositor was SIP the posts would go on for several pages.

[Antipositor]

Everything Antipositor has posted on this forum has been garbage. He/she/it is a troll and a none-too-bright one at that.



The troll is so clueless that it still doesn't understand, even when Jack tries to help it along!
Apparently, supportable arguments are not your forte, therefore ad-hominem opinions are all you can seem to manage.

[Antipositor]

Ban 'im Jonno!

:admin:
My original point in responding to this story was that such a thing couldn't happen in most developed countries which are not theocracies. I believed it was a well-known understanding that most of these countries have maintained a separation of church and state for centuries.

Apparently, some posters disagreed, therefore I posted the wiki article in hopes of clarifying the terms so that their counter-arguments wouldn't be based on differing definitions or semantics.

Instead of refuting my statement, which is something I would have expected in any respectable forum, I seem to have garnered some disaffectionate labels instead. I fail to see how this refutes or disqualifies my statements.

I'm quite sure that no moderator worth his/her salt would consider banning someone on that basis.

[Croydon Bob]

My original point in responding to this story was that such a thing couldn't happen in most developed countries which are not theocracies. I believed it was a well-known understanding that most of these countries have maintained a separation of church and state for centuries.

Apparently, some posters disagreed, therefore I posted the wiki article in hopes of clarifying the terms so that their counter-arguments wouldn't be based on differing definitions or semantics.

Instead of refuting my statement, which is something I would have expected in any respectable forum, I seem to have garnered some disaffectionate labels instead. I fail to see how this refutes or disqualifies my statements.

I'm quite sure that no moderator worth his/her salt would consider banning someone on that basis.

Are you being deliberately thick? It is obvious to everyone else that you made specific reference to Tyndale (English), on a UK Skeptics board, and then claimed that there was a seperation of church and state, which has not happened in the UK, then tried to support your incorrect position with a link that was not relevant.

Nobody else needed it explaining to them.

Now that I've set it out in really simple terms do you understand? You were wrong.

You've been trolling around these boards for a few days now making stupid assumptions about skeptics. You have contributed nothing worth reading and ignored responses that point out your errors. I wouldn't blame JJ in the slightest for banning you.

[DrS]

I believe the trend began in the 1530's with Henry VIII.
So you didn't mean England then. I see.

Do you need a shovel with a longer handle or are you going to stop digging now?

[Matt]

It wasn't so long ago (1536) that William Tyndale translated the Bible into English and was slowly tortured to death for about 3 days and then burned at the stake for his "blasphemies." But that was before the separation of Church and State. What a difference a little objectivity can make.


I believe the trend began in the 1530's with Henry VIII.


I'm baffled that you're unfamiliar with this basic tenet of modern liberal democracies.

I'll post the link again: The separation of church and state.

Are you one of our colonial cousins from accross the shores. Separation of Church and State, as your link demonstrates, is a concept which orginates in the US constitution. It is a concept implemented in that document and to a greater or lesser extent supported by the actions of the US government in the intervening decades. Whislt the concept may be much admired elsewhere, there is certainly no separation of church and state in the UK. On the contrary we have an established church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Established_church): a church officially sanctioned and supported by the state. The head of that church (the monarch) is also the head of state (though these days the postion is essentially that of a figurehead) Of more pragmatic interest is the fact that the church of England gets to appoint 26 Lords spiritual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Spiritual) to our the upper house of parliament. These bishops can propose, debate and vote upon legislation in paliament. Or also of prgamatic interest is the legally mandated acts of worship and religious instruction carried out in all state schools.

It's clear that separation of church and state is a concept never fully realised in the UK.

Would it not be more accurate then to say that it was before the withering influence of the church of england and the accompanying dilution of it's now milquetoast dogma.

[Antipositor]

Are you being deliberately thick? It is obvious to everyone else that you made specific reference to Tyndale (English), on a UK Skeptics board, and then claimed that there was a seperation of church and state, which has not happened in the UK, then tried to support your incorrect position with a link that was not relevant.

Nobody else needed it explaining to them.

Now that I've set it out in really simple terms do you understand? You were wrong.

You've been trolling around these boards for a few days now making stupid assumptions about skeptics. You have contributed nothing worth reading and ignored responses that point out your errors. I wouldn't blame JJ in the slightest for banning you.
I may be thick, but it certainly wasn't deliberate. I took the separation of church and state as a given; in the sense that very few governments outside the Islamic world are theocracies. I was a little surprised to have been challenged on that point.

As for banning, I have done nothing to contravene the rules. You obviously disagree with some of my arguments, but you've done nothing to refute them. Instead, you seem to imagine that your frustration with your inadequacies in rebuttal can somehow be transmogrified into wrongdoing on my part. To that I can only say, "in your dreams." It's a sad thing to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[Antipositor]

So you didn't mean England then. I see.

Do you need a shovel with a longer handle or are you going to stop digging now?
I'm not sure what I'm digging, but it's clear to me by now that I was deeply misunderstood. When I was asked "when did the separation of church and state occur?" it seemed obvious to me that the seminal event in Western society when there was a serious departure from a theocratic type of government (where religion plays a dominant role in the government) began about the time I mentioned.

I'm no historian, but it seems to me that the type of theocracies that exist today in parts of the Islamic world, where people were put to death for religious reasons, began to come apart in Western societies around the time period I referenced.

[Croydon Bob]

I may be thick, but it certainly wasn't deliberate. I took the separation of church and state as a given; in the sense that very few governments outside the Islamic world are theocracies. I was a little surprised to have been challenged on that point.

As for banning, I have done nothing to contravene the rules. You obviously disagree with some of my arguments, but you've done nothing to refute them. Instead, you seem to imagine that your frustration with your inadequacies in rebuttal can somehow be transmogrified into wrongdoing on my part. To that I can only say, "in your dreams." It's a sad thing to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

It's not my fault that you are too stupid to understand even when I set it out in terms a child could grasp. I don't 'disagree' with your arguments, you haven't posted any 'arguments', just drivel. I've refuted plenty of your nonsense but you don't understand and ignore me. I'll try again:

In the UK there is no seperation of church and state. The Queen is the head of state, the Queen is the head of the church. Do you understand?

On pretty much every other thread you keep attacking skeptics for believing things that they don't believe in and for saying things that we didn't say. You've presenting no argument other than to make up a position for us and then attack it. Do you understand?

If you try posting something that isn't just stupid then I'll step up a gear and actually debate with you. But you're not capable of that are you? ;D

[Antipositor]

It's not my fault that you are too stupid to understand even when I set it out in terms a child could grasp. I don't 'disagree' with your arguments, you haven't posted any 'arguments', just drivel. I've refuted plenty of your nonsense but you don't understand and ignore me. I'll try again:

In the UK there is no seperation of church and state. The Queen is the head of state, the Queen is the head of the church. Do you understand?


Well, then, this is a bit of information that is technically correct, but practically useless. If I had chosen to convey my point by saying most western democracies were not theocracies, instead of defining that same concept as a manifestation of the separation of church and state, you might have been more civil? I'm a bit skeptical of that. I think you'd have found a way to display your childishness in some other way.

[Croydon Bob]

I think you'd have found a way to display your childishness in some other way.

You use straw man arguments on every thread you post on. You attack skeptics for anything you've imagined we might think. Accusations of childishness from you are ridiculous. You seem to have only visted this forum for childish arguments.

This thread is just one where you posted pointless nonsense and even now refuse to accept the simple fact that you were wrong.

If you stop trolling I might treat you other than as the clown you've been so far. But as long as you're just going to keep making up your own fantasies about what we think and then criticising us for it then there's really no point in doing anything other than laugh at you and poke you with a stick.

[Antipositor]

You use straw man arguments on every thread you post on. You attack skeptics for anything you've imagined we might think. Accusations of childishness from you are ridiculous. You seem to have only visted this forum for childish arguments.

This thread is just one where you posted pointless nonsense and even now refuse to accept the simple fact that you were wrong.

If you stop trolling I might treat you other than as the clown you've been so far. But as long as you're just going to keep making up your own fantasies about what we think and then criticising us for it then there's really no point in doing anything other than laugh at you and poke you with a stick.
I see nothing in your posts that refutes what I say. it appears that you can't argue defacto, therefore you argue ad hominem. I'm surprised you're still here.

[Croydon Bob]

It wasn't so long ago (1536) that William Tyndale translated the Bible into English and was slowly tortured to death for about 3 days and then burned at the stake for his "blasphemies." But that was before the separation of Church and State.


you made specific reference to Tyndale (English), on a UK Skeptics board, and then claimed that there was a seperation of church and state, which has not happened in the UK, then tried to support your incorrect position with a link that was not relevant.


I see nothing in your posts that refutes what I say.

You're barely sentient. ;D

[DrS]

I see nothing in your posts that refutes what I say.
Does the following help?

I took the separation of church and state as a given

In the UK there is no seperation of church and state. The Queen is the head of state, the Queen is the head of the church. Do you understand?

[Antipositor]

Does the following help?
It does actually. I was unaware that technically, the UK had not separated Church and state. I was of course, trying to express "non-theocracy" in different words, and chose "separation of church and state" which apparently was a poor choice in this case.

I believe that in most other English-speaking countries it would have made perfect sense.