Blasphemy Rights Day.

Ron Webb wrote: I'm not sure what you find disrespectful or in violation of the rules here. Is it the word "nonsense" that you find objectionable, or the claim that literalism poses a "serious threat"? Or something else that I'm missing? [IMG]smileys/smiley5.gif" align="middle" />

If you're looking for a semantic word game kindly look elsewhere. What I object to is a preponderance of nasty and disrespectful behavior targeting Islam from yourself and others.

Tim the plumber wrote: This, on this forum, is the demand that we respect your beliefs to the point of not saying what we wish to and not challenging your professed views ... That is the point of this thread.

I have to agree with Tim here...
and I do not see where Ron has said anything that is disrespectful.  He is just sharing his opinions, and his beliefs.  (note:  would it have helped if he had said, 'it is nonsense to me', in his statement?)

To not allow this is to deny open discussion and free expression of beliefs... freedom of speech.  It is called censorship, whether it is done by others, or is demanded of people to self-censor... (as it is in Iran).

People will never be perfect in their speaking.  There will always be times when what one person says, may be taken wrong by another.  This is why open discussion must be allowed... to clear up misunderstandings.  We can not expect people to be perfect in everything that they do, and we should not wish to punish everyone for every mis-step they make.  This does not lead to peace and understanding, but only erects barriers to peace and understanding.

asalaam and blessings to all,
Caringheart


Edited by Caringheart - 17 December 2015 at 10:41am

Caringheart wrote: Greetings abuayisha,I am shocked to hear you say this.Really?� Iran - Ayatollah KhameneiWhat about Syria, Iraq, Egypt?� The are all struggling politically, because of theology.asalaam,Caringheart

I would argue that Iran is an autocracy and psuedo-theocratic at best. The "struggling politically" seen in the lands you've mentioned is because they are all client states. Religion is not to blame, but intervention from outside.

Edited by abuayisha - 18 December 2015 at 7:14am

abuayisha wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Female candidates were also not allowed to address male voters directly This only means that it wasn't a political campaign as we here in the west understand campaigning for votes. There is no official law which forbids a women from address a man as you originally asserted. Saudi has their own customs and practices which should be respected by outsiders as such.

What are you talking about?????

Femal candidates would have been arrested by the religious police in Saudi if they had addressed male voters directly.

It is reasonable for you to comment upon stuff that happens in the USA and for me to comment upon stuuf that happens in Islamic basket case states.


Edited by Tim the plumber - 19 December 2015 at 3:15am