Comments by "" (@titteryenot4524) on "JK Rowling hate law posts not criminal, police say | BBC News" video.
-
It’s absolutely no accident this law is being introduced on a Muslim’s watch. A big part of this is about not criticising Islam. As a lifelong agnostic, I have very little time for any organised religion. However, the thing that should be said is that I feel zero threat from any organised religion, bar one. If I were a public figure and publicly castigated Jesus, or Moses, or Krishna, or Buddha, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s very likely nothing would happen to me. If I publicly slagged off Muhammad, it’s quite likely there’d be a backlash and I’d be watching my back for the rest of my life. That’s the difference. Just ask Salman Rushdie or the Batley teacher who, btw, didn’t even criticise Muhammad; he just showed a damn picture! Imagine living in a society where certain people are so offended by a cartoon, they threaten death to the person who showed it! If certain people are so ‘offended’ by a cartoon, then it’s time to question the belief, not the cartoon. (Similarly, if certain other people are so ‘offended’ by someone suggesting they might not be biologically what they claim they are, it’s time to question the belief, not the questioner). It seems Islam is so trigger-sensitive it can’t take honest criticism, when it’s just a bunch of manmade ideas like all the rest. Never let anyone tell you it’s ‘racist’ or a ‘hate-crime’ to criticise Islam; it’s just some manmade ideas. These ideas are held by people of multifarious races. No one is criticizing these peoples’ race, or age, or disability, or sexual orientation. That would be stupid. No one chooses these categories. However, it’s not necessarily stupid to criticise Islam. Why? People choose that. Equally (as JK Rowling rightly points out), it’s not necessarily stupid to suggest that a person claiming to be a ‘woman’ is actually a biological man and vice-versa. Why? Because they are.
23
-
9
-
3
-
3
-
3