Sassenach wrote:

Of course, a lot of majority-Christian countries have blasphemy laws on their books, or laws against vilification or insulting religions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law has a list of many countries - some of which have removed or annulled such laws.

The penalties are less severe, and in many there have been few recent prosecutions, but it does remain a fact that it's not just Islam that has instituted such laws. In the Republic of Ireland it is written into the Constitution, but it seems a referendum is due soon. On the other hand, Russia has beefed up laws against insulting religion in the last couple of years.

This is true, but the reality of the situation is that in most cases these are legacy laws that are rarely if ever enforced and which have much lighter penalties even when they are.

Religious absolutism is only enforced in the Islamic world these days.

I don't think it's helpful to try and pretend that there isn't a problem with Islam. There clearly is. Islam as currently practiced in most parts of the world is highly illiberal and tends to reject secular values in favour of religious doctrine. This is hugely problematic.

Interesting point, Sass. Does RickyP have any current instances of Christian persecution that are occurring, or is he still living in the 1700's?

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:

Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;
Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;
Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;
Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;
Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.
While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

danivon wrote:Not so much aimed at us, but an interesting view from France of the context.

And why is it that they did not attack media related to the far right, who do clearly hate Muslims and immigrants?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Interesting point, Sass. Does RickyP have any current instances of Christian persecution that are occurring, or is he still living in the 1700's?

religion is used to discriminate and weaken individual liberty in many countries.Including the US.

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:

Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;
Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;
Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;
Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;
Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.
While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate

The blasphemy laws in the UK were last invoked in courts in the 1970s and only abolished in 2006. The Catholic Church has waged countless campaigns to deny the reproductive rights of women around the world, with great effect in nations where their adherents represent a majority and seek to enforce their choices on thee minority.
So, yeah, religions besides Islam have an effect even unto today.
But, as your reference to 1700 acknowledges, religions evolve with time, when faced with enlightened and courageous opposition both from within and without the religion.

What would you have moderate leaders within Islam do?

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:Not so much aimed at us, but an interesting view from France of the context.

And why is it that they did not attack media related to the far right, who do clearly hate Muslims and immigrants?

Perhaps you mean fringe right, not far right. We have posters here who are far right, but certainly don't hate Muslims.

In any case, fundamentalist terrorists don't see the world through your left/right formulation.

I would have moderate Islamic leaders preach their position without fear of repercussion from those within and outside of their religion.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I would have moderate Islamic leaders preach their position without fear of repercussion from those within and outside of their religion.

What you've illustrated is aspiration. That is what you'd like to see. I agree with it.
But it isn't the reality today.
If a moderate Muslim preaches a message of tolerance and forgiveness today, he must be aware that there are extremists who would harm him/her. The closer you get to Wahabist nation states (ISIS, Saudi Arabia) the more likely the repercussions.

Then why not rail against that, rather than your typical targets of Christianity and Judaism?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Then why not rail against that, rather than your typical targets of Christianity and Judaism?

Thats what you took away from the historical context I referred to?
I was railing against Christianity?
What i was doing Bbauska was pointing out that the religion of Islam is evolving in the same way that Christianity and Judaism evolved. And that where ideas confronted Christian laws that enforced death penalties and torture on blasphemers eventually the ideas changed the religion.
And I have faith that eventually Islam will be changed by confronting other ideas and values. And in fact, in the way western muslims practice their religion is vastly different than the wahabists.

Sassenach wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30835625

So the Pope is the latest to join the "I support freedom of speech, but..." bandwagon. Apparently freedom of speech has limits because, you guessed it, you can't attack somebody's faith.

Screw that. Faith should not be immune from criticism. I suppose you can hardly expect the Pope of all people to say anything different, but nevertheless it's a little depressing to witness. Defending freedom of speech means defending the right to be offensive, and if people of faith don;t like it then that's their problem. Placing faith outside the normal limits of ordinary discourse is utterly unacceptable. The sooner religious people learn that the better, but I'm not holding my breath.

danivon wrote:Bbauska - not sure. Do the IRA count? They didn't so much defend Catholicism as Catholics, but did blow up and shoot Protestants (and opposing terror groups did the same to Catholics).

The point is not whether Catholics are as prone to violence, but that the Pope is being applauded by some for making the argument that speech is free, but violent reactions are in some way acceptable (and he did use an example of a violent reaction).

Which seems to me to be a weak defence of the right to offend religion.