Activity


  • By Ishaan Tharoor

    On Sunday, a prominent Jordanian writer was assassinated on the steps of an Amman courthouse, where he was to face charges for having shared a supposedly blasphemous cartoon on social media. […]

    • @OP – On Sunday, a prominent Jordanian writer was assassinated on the steps of an Amman courthouse, where he was to face charges for having shared a supposedly blasphemous cartoon on social media. Nahed Hattar’s accused killer, it later emerged, was a 49-year-old former imam from an impoverished neighborhood in the Jordanian capital.

      This clearly illustrates a total disregard of secular law, which is inculcated in the delusional leaders and congregations!

      No only was the blogger being taken to court on a theocratic charge of blasphemy, which most rational people would regard as the grossly disproportionate handling of a trivial matter, but even that was not enough for the murderous ranting preachers!

    • said that Hattar’s “blasphemy” did not count as free speech and that he deserved to “now stand trial in God’s court.”

      How does one address such insanity? First, a moronic explanation about free speech from someone that has no idea about freedom, followed by utter delusion that can mask his inhumanity by having all the humans in that area (save some, we hope) ready to agree with him because he invokes this widespread delusion. How can a person in any civilized country say as this man has said?

    • How does one address such insanity?

      “How?” indeed. That is the question.

      No one ever said that the world is, or must be, a good place. There is a tremendous amount of injustice, stupidity, cruelty, and madness out there. There always has been and there always will be. The good people do what they can, but we need to accept the fact that in this world, pervasive ignorance is a reality, a fact of life, and that whatever it is – and it is not merely ignorance – that drives people to be cruel, inhumane, and brutal is an extremely powerful (and seemingly indestructible) force – and that is just the way it is. This is the world we live in. It is not “the best of all possible worlds”, as Leibniz said. Not by a long shot. Can we make it better? We can try. (But nothing is permanent. Even Utopia would eventually be disrupted.) We can try to make things better to the best of our abilities. We (humans) should try – but at a certain point we might not want to try.

      Resignation and Acceptance has its place too. Resignation may be, in the end, the only thing left for the good among us when all else fails; the futility of trying (that Sisyphean labor) may someday give birth to the humility of not trying anymore, will engender acceptance and, ultimately, resignation. Or, we will continue to try and never quite succeed; that will always be our choice and our right – but it is not necessarily a rational choice.

    • “You have the right to criticize a president, a prince, or a king, but you do not have the right to draw, to affront or to humiliate the Lord.”

      The key difference being that the first three can and will defend themselves if they are sufficiently insulted, the latter does not, will not or cannot. Any being that can defend itself, but needs to be defended by others because they do not defend themselves, is not sufficiently insulted to bother. The same could be said for any being who will not: they either don’t care or don’t have the time to defend themselves. Any being who cannot do so themselves is either too young to defend themselves or mentally incapable of doing so, or they are an animal. Which one best describes your god, Hani Nahhas?

    • Ben Jackson #4
      Oct 2, 2016 at 1:18 am

      “You have the right to criticize a president, a prince, or a king, but you do not have the right to draw, to affront or to humiliate the Lord.”

      The key difference being that the first three can and will defend themselves if they are sufficiently insulted, the latter does not, will not or cannot.

      Of course if an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent, being, with all the powers in the Universe, needs some geriatric preacher with a gun to defend it, or does not care to defend itself, that does raise embarrassing questions about its actual existence, claimed properties, or asserted requirements!

    • This imam who would be so bold as to take a human life over a drawing, he is the insult ti his pretend god. He has insulted his deity and shown how truly weak both his belief and his construction of “god” is. What a shit fest these “believers” have evolved in “the holy land”…. I wish they could understand what a farce they are. The only reason I can’t laugh is that so many of them are so dangerous and so flippant with and dismissive of human life.

    • Crookedshoes

      “… so flippant with and dismissive of human life.”

      So true. Poignant.

    • Alan;

      some geriatric preacher with a gun

      …who was, according to the Washington Times, :-

      “Nahed Hattar’s accused killer, it later emerged, was a 49-year-old former imam ”

      This 65 year-old does…errr… what was I saying?

    • Ivor #8
      Oct 3, 2016 at 7:09 am

      “Nahed Hattar’s accused killer, it later emerged, was a 49-year-old former imam ”

      Sorry – I should have read the link – I must have missed that, having read the story from a different source before this was posted.
      It can be a bit difficult to estimate levels of mental maturity or retirement ages at times for imams.