Offense is in the eye of the beholder, what offends me is that there are people that would jail others based on insulting religions. And I say that as an atheist, my choice on that front already offends some religious people, go figure.
If you subscribe to a religion then you should live by its rules, those rules should not be part of the rules that run a country but they should allow the religious community to determine who is part of the 'in-group' and who is not.
And they should leave everybody else alone.
Assuming I have some criticisms of the application of Islamic laws, why must I ask your permission to express them, and to hold political opinions in general? I'm sure that some of my opinions would be held offensive by someone, does that mean I have "offended a religion/culture"?
This was my first comment on this thread, and I'm not the one who submitted it. Read the usernames attached to the posts.
> if...you insulted that religion
As I said, it depends on my opinions and the definition of insulting - people might be insulted by what I say, I don't know until I've said it, do I.
In Liberal Theory (On Liberty, JS Mill) it is said that freedom of thought (believing something) and freedom of expression (expressing that belief, whether in a wordy article on political theory or a catchy, easy to understand cartoon) are so close as to be indistinguishable; since one cannot really claim to believe something if one cannot express it. You are trying to distinguish between the two; I don't think that's philosophically valid.
Additionally, you seem to be saying that you think it should be against the law to be rude. I will no doubt offend you if I say "how very English that sounds".
Offense is interpretation. This is fundamental to Liberal Theory.
In some cultures, some things are considered racist, in others they are not. see: "Black Person Toothpaste" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie (In China, a popular brand of toothpaste. In the UK, US, and I'd hope much of Europe, the name and the packaging would be considered extremely offensive[1].)
If "humans" don't agree on what's offensive (as I have proved with the toothpaste example), then something isn't "offensive" in and of itself; offense is an opinion about the object ("We think this opinion is offensive"). You can hardly convict someone of "causing our people to interpret something as offensive".
[1] although perhaps not in Italy... http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/jul/30/italy...
And if they are so easily offended, this is not OP's fault.
As someone firmly rooted in reality - I can't. When we participate in a community (be it religious or otherwise, be it of our own informed choice or not) we are bound by the rules of that community. When we knowingly break the rules of that community, we implicitly accept the potential consequences.
No matter how petty or offensive it seems that insulting a religion is grounds for imprisonment -- within the context of that community this is not something up for debate.
You say that the religion's rules "should not be" part of the rules that run a country. Maybe to your view and mine, this is true - but to the view of a sufficient number of people who actually make up that community, this is not true.
If enough people question it, then the rules of the community will change. But unfortunately, such change will require a critical mass of people breaking those rules - and being willing accept the consequences.
And unfortunately, it's that simple.
My way of dealing with that is to refuse to do business with places that are set up like that. It seems to be the easiest way to deal with this problem, then I don't need to wonder what to say/do/not say/not do in order to avoid giving offense to someone with an ax to grind.
There are countries where it is illegal to write certain words, paint pictures, teach women, get an education, complain that you've been raped and so on. The list is long and makes for very sad reading because it shows us how far we as humanity still have to go to get to a more enlightened level. Some people would happily revert to the stone age if that meant that their bearded invisible friend gets to call the shots.
In the end, it's all just little people wrecking it for the rest of us, and this makes me slightly sad that I'm an atheist and not a Roman Catholic because then I'd be confident that all these little men (the pope included) would one day burn in hell.
I did? Oh my.
Change has to come from within and cannot be forced because we believe it is right or wrong else we create resistance to change, which perpetuates the injustice which we want to remove.
Freedom and Slavery are one and the same thing, it is the level of restrictions which defines whether you are in a Slave environment or Free Environment and it is also complicated by the fact that one person's view of slavery/freedom is different from another person's view.
Avoiding to deal with it does not make the problem go away, it still exists and when intelligent people do this, it will still exist for ever.
It is never little people wrecking it for the rest of us, it is us, the little people wrecking for everyone in the name of dogmas without understanding the consequences of our own actions.
Being atheist myself, this is inaccurate. I consider the existence or non-existence of a deity to be a non-issue, so it is not that I am actively refuting something that is disputed.
The best way to understand this is to look at the "cosmic teapot" anecdote (or the "flying spaghetti monster" to be more current). It is impossible to disprove that there is a giant teapot floating in orbit near Mars which is impervious to all forms of human detection. Does this mean that you or I are members of an anti-teapot religious group? Of course not - the question of whether or not the teapot exists simply has no relevance for us and is therefore ignored.
Assuming he/she is 100% wrong in what he/she did, why should the punishment be more than the crime? Why outcast? Isn't doing the sentence enough? And if it's not enough, then the damn law needs fixing.
as a side note, i born as a muslim and read the kuran several times. don't try to teach me islam here. if a person doesn't believe to allah, it's his own problem. who are you to decide that. are you allah?
http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/Bukhari_5_58.php I hope you know how to scroll down.
btw why are you so obsessive about playboy? In my country we say, man's thoughts are revealed in his speech. No body said they slept. When you first heard marriage, it was sick enough. Now you saw the truth and trying to cover it with "yeah, but they didn't sleep together, it's not written anywhere" . yes i'm talking only about the written part. why he married with a child? go to the nearest mosque and ask your imam. maybe he will tell you.
And I totally agree with you. HN is not the place that you can bullshit freely. Outcast yourself please.
Someone is facing legal action for posting pictures and need help with their startup. The context of their conviction isn't relevant for the discussion. Similarly; Al-Khwarithmi's religion is not relevant to us whatsoever. They're really interesting tech stories with human-interest stores intermingled - it's not difficult at all to focus just on the tech aspect.
I'm confused by your last point too - we aren't here to sit and discuss some kind of homogenous technocratic dogma. It's a poor example in any case - tech seems to prompt the some of most fervent rounds mud-slinging of all topics up for discussion on the internet.
> Ask HN: I might be going to prison soon, how to save my one-man SaaS startup?
That's what the discussion should be about. Perhaps OP shouldn't have mentioned his "crime", but the fact that it's religious has no bearing on how he handles running a startup from jail.
I interpreted your position as applying muslim community standards in what is not a muslim community. This is a very liberal community in which insulting religions for humorous effect is perfectly ok.
> not be refuge for immoral people who insult other people's cultures
"there seems a clear correlation between intelligence and willingness to consider shocking ideas". "In any competitive field, you can win big by seeing things that others daren't" http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)
or see for example (http://xkcd.com/137/)
This community willingly asks questions that would be considered 'immoral' elsewhere.
> a muslim guy invented algorithms
Irrelevant. Alan Turing was gay and Ada Lovelace was female.
Here's a new word for you: liberty. It doesn't mean "only liberty to do things that _I_ like", it means tolerating when others do things I don't like, as long these don't constitute (in words of US Supreme Court) a "clear and present danger" to me or others. I don't have a right to post a list of mosques in my area and encourage others to attack their members (if I do so I should very much be arrested, thrown in jail, and forced to pay restitution if any vandalism, property damage, or violence has occurred); I do have a right to say that prohibition of pork both in Islam and my religion (Judaism) is outdated and silly (it made sense when there was no refrigeration and eating pork in a hot climate meant a risk of trichinosis, but it makes no sense now), you have a right to disagree and continue to not eat pork.
There is nothing inherently Western about this idea too. If you don't treat the concept as binary but as a continuum, it's clear that during the Middle Ages parts of Islamic world were more free than most parts of the Western world. There are many Western detractors of the idea of liberty, there are many Eastern (including Islamic) defenders of the concept (see http://www.nocompulsioninislam.com/nocompulsion.html for examples from your own culture, see Mencious and Laozi for examples from Chinese culture).
Being offended does not constitute "clear and present danger". I personally find the literal text of Torah, New Testament, and Koran to be extremely offensive -- but I understand that they are not meant to be taken literally (but frequently are with disastrous results), were written a in different time and in different circumstances, and will do all I can to prevent those texts from being censored.
----
icebraining, I couldn't have used better words than those.
Now you were talking generally, not Malaysian only, which means that your 'rules' interfere with my freedom of speech (which is normal in my society) and that supersedes your religion, whatever it is.
Now as I am a social beast, I personally know many (devout) religious people, muslims, buddhists, catholics, christians and besides my high school religion teacher and in some fanatical news on the tv I haven't heard many people talk like you. Most people I know who are religious, believe in good for all and turning the other cheek. I am an atheist, but sometimes I wish I could believe something like that. If I would tell my good friend Muhammed (who is a hardworking plumber in my village) about this Malaysian guy, he would pray Allah for his release and fulfilling life. He would not feel any 'offensive' thing here. That's how it's supposed to be imho.
Difference in degree, not in kind.
(English subtitles are available, click on 'captions' option.)