Pakistani Christians, fearing backlash, flee community after girl is accused of blasphemy

[cleanhippie]

Amid the conflicting claims, this much is certain: As many as 600 Christians have fled their colony bordering the capital, fearing for their lives, officials said, after a mob last week called for the child to be burned to death as a blasphemer.

The girl, who authorities have described as mentally challenged, sits in jail in Rawalpindi, charged by police with blasphemy, while her family has been put in federal protective custody. The evidence against her is muddled at best, but police said they arrested her in part to assuage the mob and also because they knew she would be safer in jail.

--snip--

Liberal-to-moderate Pakistanis see the rise in blasphemy allegations as a reflection of a dangerous ascent of extremism and anti-Western sentiment throughout society.

“Most of the people consider the Christians here to represent the West,” said Paul Bhatti, who heads the Ministry of National Harmony — a post created after his younger brother, Shahbaz Bhatti, a Catholic and minority affairs minister, was assassinated last year by the Pakistani Taliban for advocating reform of the blasphemy laws.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistani-christians-fearing-backlash-flee-community-after-girl-accused-of-blasphemy/2012/08/20/d3b23c9a-eae3-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html

The parallels to our own christian fundies here are frightening. The rise of the extremists are empowered by the liberal and moderates apathy and fear of having their own beliefs called into question. I hope that liberal/progressive believers here are paying attention, because until YOU step up (with the rest of us) and help drown out the voices of the extremists and help drive them out of our government, THIS is where we are headed. And even the liberal/moderate believers will not be safe.

Common ground? This is it, kids. Our freedom and the freedom of the next generation to believe or not to believe as we see fit it under attack. Where do you stand?

[rug]

1. Posted Sunday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121841496

Keep pushing this. It's important.

[cleanhippie]

2. Because it can be difficult to tell...

Are you being snarky or serious?

Do you agree with my sentiments as posted in the OP?

[rug]

3. No, I'm deadly serious.

Never mind the death penalty, never mind for blasphemy, deteaining a Downs syndrome child for this shit?

It's important.

[cleanhippie]

6. I agree. But moving on to the larger point I was making...

Do you agree or disagree with my sentiments? Why or why not?

[rug]

9. I don't think there's quite the same parallel in this country - yet.

Which is not to say there are not some. There are certainly serious church-state intrusions that require quick, loud, forceful and united action. What I find frustrating is to see so much time, energy and money involved in what turns out to be attempted street theatre rather than a serious fight.

So, if you want a serious fight, I'm there. If you want provacative street theatre over menus and billboards, I'll be in the Lounge.

[cleanhippie]

10. I tend to agree, however, until the liberal/ progressive believers

Step up, in the manner that I stated, instead of complaining about billboards and trying to keep religious symbols ON public property, and telling us how infantile combining about prayer in public service is....

All of that does nothing but legitimize the extremists and empowers their movement. Is that so difficult to see?

[rug]

12. That holds only if you believe religious belief, per se, leads to extremist actions.

It doesn't.

And as long as attacking all religious belief goes hand in hand with attacking extremist actions, you, we, lose.

[cleanhippie]

13. No, it doesn't always, but that is beside the point.

It is the moderates that join the chorus for non-believers to STFU, and that fail to call out and marginalize the zealots, that empower the radicals.

[rug]

14. "Moderates" are failing to join nonbelievers in demanding that RWers STFU.

Therefore, nonbelievers attack moderates' core beliefs.

Ergo, the RW laughs at the spectacle.

It's an unproductive dead end.

[cleanhippie]

16. It's only a dead end because moderates fail to do their part.

They want some kind of group grope where we all just get along and somehow tolerate the extremists, at the expense of us all.
The extremists must be marginalized, I see no other way. Do you?

[rug]

17. I don't want to offend you but I really don't want a group grope with you or some others I've seen.

There are lots of ways to marginalize extremists. Spending your time attacking those who don't join in, say, ripping pages out of the Bible, is not one of them.

[cleanhippie]

18. Yeah, I get that you don't like the current approach.

What do you propose? Instead of criticizing what IS happening, why do you think should be the approach?

[rug]

19. In my view, focus, focus, focus.

Keep them squarely in your sights and expose them. And don't be distracted.

Just my opinion.

[Adsos Letter]

21. An excellent opinion, that.

"Keep them squarely in your sights and expose them. And don't be distracted."

[cleanhippie]

22. That's the current approach. Where are the moderates in this fight?

[rug]

26. They're there if you look.

The key is to determine exactly who you're fighting, and why.

[cleanhippie]

33. That's the problem, one should have to look for them.

One need not look for the non-believers leading this fight. Every time I look around to see who is with us, we're getting it from both the font and the rear.

And with no snark intended because its been a touchy subject, where are the liberal/moderate Catholics fighting the pedophilia and misogyny in their church? Sure there are a few, but one would think these detestable actions would be cause for a revolution. Yet nary a peep, they just keep going back, Sunday after Sunday, smiling and filling the collection plates.


The examples of areas where believers should be LEADING this fight to stop the march toward theocracy are numerous, and yet it seems only the vocal "new atheists", who are disparaged at every turn, by BOTH sides, are out in front.

[rug]

34. Here's a handful at random.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/20/some-catholic-leaders-speaking-out-against-paul-ryan-s-budget-cutting.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/11/religious-progressives-prepare-to-mount-case-against-ryan/

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/liberal-christians-speak-out-20120821-24kfk.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/02/progressive-religious-voices-not-irrelevant-just-ignored/

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/islam-a-progressive-force

And there is no dispute that pedophilia and misogyny is a cancer on the Catholic Church, as it is, like or not, throughout society. But they no more define it than endless war defines the U.S. What irks me is when they are routinely raised merely to discredit any religious viewpoint.

In any event, this is my favorite group of people. Maybe they should be louder.

http://www.catholicworker.org/

http://www.mennoworld.org/blog/2012/8/20/catholic-workers-hospitality/

[trotsky]

44. I'll repeat this again, since it still hasn't sunk in.

It's not just the pedophilia in your church, it's the INSTITUTIONAL COVERUP: the PROTECTION of rapists, and their REASSIGNMENT to a place where they have a clean slate and fresh victims.

THAT'S the icing on the monstrosity cake. But no Catholic apologist seems to acknowledge that - it's always along the lines of "well there are pedophiles elsewhere in society too, so shut up!"

And by the way - it isn't being raised to discredit a religious viewpoint. It's raised to discredit the moral authority of your church and anyone in it that defends its actions.

[rug]

47. Repeat what? Was I talking to you?

There's really no need to repeat anything. I can just rewind your tape - or loop it. Same difference.

[trotsky]

48. You were spouting the same falsehoods that I have responded to in other threads.

We don't attack your church only because it has pedophiles (though it and many other institutions do), and we don't attack your theological position because of that.

We attack your church because of its documented, proven history of sheltering and aiding pedophiles, and we doubt its moral authority (and that of those who defend it) because of that.

Can you acknowledge this, or will you respond with another lame swipe at me?

[rug]

49. The only one spouting, if not blustering, is you.

Regarding your use of "we", speak for yourself or identify who the "we" are. If you's being rhetorical, I'll simply take it as another load of bullshit I've heard from you.

[eqfan592]

50. You can include my wife and I in that "we."

In fact, my wife is a former roman catholic, and the pedophile harboring was one of the many reasons she left the church.

[rug]

53. Did you inform trotsky of that?

And was that the main reason?

[trotsky]

51. Well, it's clear what you chose.

I gave you an honest, sincere answer, and you responded as usual with vicious accusations and nasty swipes.

[rug]

52. I think the only honest sincere statement I've heard from you is that you keep your atheism secret

off the internet.

I found that to be remarkable.

But it does explain your overcompensation on it.

[trotsky]

54. It's quite the clear pattern, you know.

Whenever I make a sincere attempt at getting through to you, explaining something to you - and when that point is a good one, you always react this way. Nasty, attacking, bitter, spitting one-liners and insults.

I challenge you to do better. Prove that you love your neighbor, rug.

Or spit in my face again, your choice.

[rug]

55. It's hard to see an alleged sincere attempt when it's buried in religious attacks wrapped around

ad hominem insinuations.

Knock it off and we both may have something productive to say.

[trotsky]

62. Where is my "religious attack" in this thread, rug?

Point it out. I'll own it, apologize for it, and edit it out. Will you then acknowledge what I said?

Or if you can't point out the religious attack(s), will you apologize for your behavior?

[rug]

63. It's there but I won't dwell on it.

It's not productive. Let's move on.

[trotsky]

67. No, rug, let's clear the air.

Point it out. I will edit it out and apologize.

Ball's in your court. Let's do this.

[trotsky]

69. Where is it, rug?

Please point it out so I can be informed and we can improve the level of discourse in this group. I don't want to say things that you're going to construe as a "religious attack" which will then sidetrack discussion. Point it out.

[trotsky]

70. Still waiting for you to point it out.

Should be extremely simple to do.

Unless it's a false charge. It isn't a false charge, is it, rug? Because it if were, the very least thing you could do is apologize for it. So please, point it out. Inform me.

[trotsky]

78. Hey rug - just point it out when you have the chance.

If you want to move on, point it out, let's clear it up.

You were being honest in your accusation, right? Because an apology is really in order if you made a false accusation. That is, IF you're interested in civil discussion about the issues and not attacking fellow posters.

Thanks and looking forward to your response!

[trotsky]

81. Still waiting, rug.

Did you make false accusation?

Where's my apology?

[trotsky]

84. Ready to point out the "religious attack" yet, rug?

Looks more and more like you made that up just to smear me.

How very Christian.

[trotsky]

85. Still waiting, rug.

Do it. It'll be good for your soul.

[trotsky]

86. Your false accusation stands unproven and unretracted.

On that note, I am done with you, rug.

I have engaged you on multiple occasions honestly and sincerely to break through this bitter, nasty, attacking facade because I thought that you were smart enough, underneath your online persona, to behave like a decent human being.

I was wrong. Terribly wrong.

Bottom line is, you make DU suck. And I've had enough. So prepare your best snappy insulting comeback one-liner and post it for everyone else to see, because I'll be spared from your vicious posts from now on thanks to DU's wonderful Ignore feature.

Good luck to you, rug. I hope the best for you and that you can grow and get past this phase you're in.

[skepticscott]

64. Waste of time

He is in deep, deep, pathological denial about his church's protection and enabling of child rapists. I suppose he has his reasons, but he is truly incapable of openly acknowledging and discussing the plain and undeniable truth of the matter.

[rug]

68. Are you in the habit of internet psychiatric diagnoses?

[trotsky]

4. He's poisoned the well to such an extent...

you can never be sure. And that's unfortunate.

[rug]

5. Well, look what's floated into my well.

Incredible. A discussion about a disabled Pakistani girl in jail for bullshit and, this, is what's on your mind.

[cleanhippie]

7. To be fair, I didn't post this for that reason.

While it is incredibly sad what is happening to this child, I am speaking to a larger point.

[trotsky]

8. Your intense sarcasm and dripping contempt for MOST issues involving these topics

are what have poisoned the well. That, coupled with your immediate response of a personal attack when this is pointed out.

I'm sorry your behavior gets the reaction it does. Perhaps you should consider changing it.

[Leontius]

11. You ask for help from those who have similar concerns about

religious extremism and theocratic despotism and then demand that they concede that your conception of what our civil society should be is the only "common ground". That's not a particularly attractive way to form a confederation of potential allies.

[cleanhippie]

15. Well, by all means, please tell us what you think would work best for us all.

Considering our very multi-cultural make-up, I woul love to hear about anything other than a totally secular government would work.

I'm all ears.

[Adsos Letter]

20. I'll stand with the common ground of secular government and Church/State separation.

I agree with you that this is where we are headed if we don't actively work for the maintenance of Church/State separation in this country...from both Right and Left.

I financially support Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I have often contested with co-workers, relatives, acquaintances, etc., who hold to a "Christian Nation" ideology. I attend a church with a very strong track record regarding Church/State separation, and financially support their Religious Liberty department (which actually does believe in the right to believe or not believe, and deplores the "Christian Nation" lie).

I've helped raise two daughters into adulthood with a strong belief in Church/State separation, which I suspect they'll pass on to their own kids.

I vote.

Not quite sure where else to go with it.

[LARED]

23. "The parallels to our own christian fundies here are" actually

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

nearly nonexistent.

So why would you go down that road?

[cleanhippie]

24. I don't expect that one who has espoused theocratic ideals would get it, LaRed.

[Leontius]

25. The carelessness with which you toss the words

theocracy, theocrat and theocratic around and at people leads to the belief that you have no real conception of what they mean.

[LARED]

27. This is not unnoticed. nt

[cleanhippie]

31. Neither were the things you stated.

You're not the only one paying attention, LaRed.

[cleanhippie]

30. Have you read the things he has espoused?

Seems to fit any definition I've read.

[Leontius]

37. I don't recall any that fit that description by him

but if you have any to point out, great, I'll read them and if they do step over into theocracy we'll have agreement that it is. However since you've accused me of the same sin without any factual basis for such an accusation you'll just have to deal with my being quite skeptical about this.

[cleanhippie]

39. So, you want proof? Is that what you are saying?

Is objective, observable proof what you need to conclude what is true and is not?

[Leontius]

45. What I am saying is I don't recall any of his posts that would lead me to conclude

that he is in favor of theocracy and if you have some that you feel would give your use of the term some weight other than just "I say he does, trust me" I can decide if it is or is not the case because just trusting your characterization of his position is not going to cut it.

[cleanhippie]

59. Of course you dont. And evolution is just a theory too that does not disprove creationism.

[Leontius]

60. Why is it when you are given multiple chances to show the truth

in what you claim you can't do it? What are you afraid of, it would seem that the truth is something alien to your posts. Do you just throw shit on people and hope that no one notices that there is nothing remotely close to the truth in your statements, is that it? Sorry but everyone notices it. I could almost be generous enough to chalk your hesitance to provide any statements he made to back up your accusation to your complete ignorance of the meaning of theocracy or theocrat but since this seems to be a pattern with you I must conclude there is a more odious reason for your attempts to repeatedly evade giving a real truthful response.

[LARED]

28. Would get what?

I get you are creating equivalences held together with a thread.

I get you don't understand what theocrat means.

I get apathy is the likey outcome of a nearly nonexistent concern.

Did I miss anything?

[cleanhippie]

32. More like a rope than a thread.

A rope that would be fashioned into a noose that would hang anyone that didn't fall in line with the ideology of a theocracy. Kinda like what is happening to the people in the OP, which is the whole frikking point.

[LARED]

35. I guess you're welcome to live in any reality of

your choosing. In the United States I've not seen anyone or anybody espousing a theocracy and if they are no one is paying attention.

But don't let me interrupt your fantasy.

[cleanhippie]

36. Do you live under a rock, or have you been in deep freeze stasis, or what?

Turn in Fox news, LaRed, and watch this "fantasy" come to life. Surely you cannot be so blind, can you?

[LARED]

38. Please provide a link to an organization or individual that is advocating a theocracy

A group that actually has some power. Not a bunch of fringe loonies with a web page. Or at least one link to a Christian fundie group advocating burning children for blasphemy.

[cleanhippie]

40. *Sigh*

When your take the wheels off of your goalposts, let me know. Until then, I won't be the Charlie to your Lucy, LaRed.

[LARED]

42. Your inability to back up your claims is

not me moving the goal posts.

Again have a great day.

[cleanhippie]

43. Ok, here ya go.

http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/culture_war/the_american_taliban.html


What is scary to me is how you have espoused some of this same rhetoric, LaRed.


It will be interesting to see just how you go about dismissing all of these people and their networks as somehow trivial or unimportant.

[okasha]

46. You still haven't produced any evidence that Lared

holds these views. It's beginning to look distincly as if you can't.

[eqfan592]

56. Thank goodness for the handy, dandy search function.

Didn't take me long to find a thread where LARED repeatedly states that this is a Christian nation.

He also says the US is "a nation of people inseparable from Christian thought, moral and ethics, It has and does permeates every part of our life in America."

He says he does not support a theocracy in this very same thread, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that the above statements don't sound like something somebody in support of a christian theocracy would say.

Link to the thread here: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/121824718#post32

[cleanhippie]

57. Thanks for the assist.

[eqfan592]

66. No problem.

I'm beginning to understand why some folks make use of the bookmark function. lol

[LARED]

61. Again, you display a lack of understanding of the word theocracy nt

[eqfan592]

65. Definition of theocracy (from wikipedia)

Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

I stated in my post that you claim to be opposed to such a government. My point was that the OTHER statements you made would most certainly be echoed by somebody in support of a theocracy.

[LARED]

71. Theocracy from a dictionary is what I have in mind

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy?s=t

the·oc·ra·cy? ?/?iˈɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled[thee-ok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural the·oc·ra·cies.
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

The fact that someone may echo statements I made in no way means I support a theocracy or desire one. George Washington was a devote Christian man that believed biblical principles were excellent guideline for the public to follow (as many highly influential people believe and have believed in America). Are you going to make the case the George Washington was a Theocrat? Perhaps Abe Lincoln was a closet theocrat? How about John Kennedy who said "Yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - The belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

I echo sentiments similair to that and I am in some way supporting a theocracy. It's simply nonsense.

[eqfan592]

75. What you said went beyond what George Washington said.

And I very clearly underscored the fact that you denied being in favor of a theocracy. All I was saying that if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, don't be shocked if somebody is going to think that thing is a duck.

[LARED]

76. Well if that's the case then I am in good company. nt

[eqfan592]

79. Uhhh, ok....

/conversation

[cleanhippie]

58. So, uh, what was that you were saying?

[LARED]

72. It's a pretty unimpressive list

Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Only a few nut jobs were actually calling for anything close to a theocracy. Quite a few are dead. Many are barely know to probably 99 percent of America. A significant number are simply stating opinions that some may find offensive. In short your concern that parallels exist with christian fundies to the radical muslims that want to burn a child for blasphemy and have whole communities fleeing for their lives is hardly convincing. In fact it's downright laughable if the article was not so horrible.

A complete fail.

It's somewhat amusing that the John Ashcroft quote in your link echo sentiments quite similiar to the Kennedy quote in my signature line.

Ashcroft - "Civilized people – Muslims, Christians, and Jews – all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator."

Kennedy - "The belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." John F. Kennedy Inaugural address January 20, 1961"

[Leontius]

73. Expect only silence

It's like shinning light on cockroaches. When the truth is presented they scurry under something.

[eqfan592]

74. What "truth" are you talking about?

You mean the truth that LARED does in fact espouse beliefs that would be echoed by those who support a theocracy, or the that he thinks the list presented to him is a "fail" in spite of the fact that it was actually the very evidence he asked to be provided?

Sorry, but "truth" my ass.

[Leontius]

80. The truth is that he does have a more expansive view of the role and influence religion

has played in America's history than you do.The truth is he has a more broad view of the allowable expression of religion in the public square, not government, than you do. The truth is that he in no way espouses that the US should become a "theocracy" which you admit. The truth is that the expression of these views may sound similar to those who believe that religion should hold the same power and influence on our government as it has held in the past may be reva lent to someone linking him as a theocrat or right wing christian conservative without understanding the different conclusions each would seek to maintain. If you would care to continue this discussion of his statements in the thread you linked to I would be happy to do so with you as our exchanges have for the most part been quite reasonable without the usual childish personal attacks that always come with exchanges of certain regular posters. While we may disagree to varying degrees on points of religion and what should be the norm in society I have found your arguments on the whole to be honest attempts to advocate your point of view without constant evasion to answer and innuendo and smearing and distortion of my point of view, misunderstandings excepted.

[samsingh]

29. kick

[Odin2005]

41. Is that the little girl with Down's Syndrome?

[dimbear]

82. It's been suggested that she had Downs, but what we sort of know for sure is she has a seizure

disorder. Sad, sad situation.

[pnwmom]

77. Where in the US is any child hiding out in jail because religious extremists might kill her?

Or any adult?

It's pretty funny that you're calling on the liberals somehow to keep the nut cases in line, when you're always acting as if all religious people are nut cases.

[skepticscott]

83. Children in this country

have received threats of violence from religious extremists for standing up to religious intrusion. As have adults. Here's just one example:

http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet/#!/entry/why-is-an-atheist-high-school-student-getting-vicious-death,50386963444f67894733f8ca/1

Fortunately, we don't have to put them in jail to protect them, since most of the religious fanatics in this country are cowardly blowhards.

And no, not all religious people are nut cases...but a lot of them who aren't still provide cover and apologetics for those who are.

[dimbear]

87. A few more details seep out today (NPR.) It would seem Muslim Pakistanis in some cases

use the accusation of blasphemy against others, whether minorities or not, as a convenience when they wish to harm others based on a grudge or envy or whatnot. For those who know the history of the witch mania, you are doubtless struck by the remarkable parallel.