http://news.yahoo.com/malaysias-top-court-allah-muslims-only-060945018.html
I am so :mad:ing sick of Muslim bullshit.
And how is that “Muslims bullshit” as opposed to bullshit from a particular group, a government, which by no means represents all Muslims?
I’m in Malaysia now. It basically comes down to this: is ala just the Malay word for “god” (obviously originating as an Arabic borrowing), or does it refer only to the Muslim god?
It does seem incongruous (to US eyes, especially) that a country with an advanced economy and superhighways has such a theocratic lack of free speech. But it does remind me that freedom of speech (and separation of church and state) is something that had to invented and carefully nurtured – one of the points of a great book I just read, Russell Shorto’s The Island at the Center of the World. (It’s about New Amsterdam, the Dutch colonial city that became New York, which provided more of a foundation for these US political freedoms than is generally acknowledged).
Is there an apostasy law in Malaysia?
I’m glad to see the OP is focusing on what truly matters.
Alabama Chief Justice says first amendment only applies to Chrsitians.
But I’m sure this is different from what’s going on in Malaysia because… reasons?
Non-Christians in Alabama are allowed to say “Christ!” if they hit themselves on the thumb with a hammer. Christians, however, are not allowed to take the lord’s name in vain and therefore have no such right.
Because the latter is an official ruling and the former is just some dude mouthing off.
Yeah, he’s just a judge. It’s not like his interpretation of the law carries any weight or anything.
Was the Alabama judge’s statement a official ruling? Yes or no.
No. Are you going to ask a relevant question next?
It is a relevant question. Miller asked what the difference was between the Malaysian ruling and what that Alabama judge said. The difference is that the former is a ruling. The latter isn’t and therefore can just be dismissed as some old fool mouthing off. Not the same thing at all.
How’s this for a relevand question; if I’m a Malaysian Christian, am I allowed to say “Allah” if it comes up in a hip-hop track I’m rapping along with?
If you lined up all the evil Muslims of the world, in order of evilness, the Malays would be so far down the list as to be humorous.
This is self evident to anyone with even a passing knowledge of either Islam or Malays.
Unfortunately while the OP clearly possesses no knowledge of either, he doesn’t let that get in the way of his bigotry. A pretty clear sign of raw unadulterated ignorance.
The first is just a ruling about a word. The latter is a statement of legal opinion about a right.
I am sure they are sick of your bullshit, too.
The old fool is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He has authored some seriously worrisome decisions, including this in one:
He’s not just mouthing off - he seems to put his money where his mouth is.
However, in relation to the specific quote here there’s the following:
Yes. It’s not precisely illegal as a federal matter, but it’s everything but. Ethnic Malays are presumed to be Muslim and held to Shariah codes, and you have to go to a Shariah court to petition if you want to convert (and apparently they very rarely allow conversions).
I’m guessing that loving bacon and drinking aren’t popular grounds to grant conversions?
Okay, help me out here because I’m really not getting this at all. The Malaysian ruling is a ruling, right? That means people have to obey it. People have to change the way that they live their lives or face legal sanction because of this ruling. I have that correct, yes? This ruling directly affects the lives of literally tens of millions of people.
Please, tell me in simple language what weight does the “statement of legal opinion” hold which compares with that? Does anyone have to obey this “statement of legal opinion”? Does anyone have to change their behaviour in any way at all? I get that the guy who said it is important and everything, and maybe I mischaracterised it when I said it was just “some old fool mouthing off” but it still seems like it isn’t in anything like the same league, legally speaking, as the Malaysian ruling which clearly has the power to genuinely hurt people.
Look, the way I see it, Miller made a simple false equivalence. Easy mistake to make, done it myself plenty of times. But from where I’m sitting it seems like a pretty clear false equivalence. What am I missing?
Only if you promise not to rhyme it with “dollar” or “holler”.