Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 11:12am:


OK sure, I think it boils down to basic decency and common courtesy. And I believe that is the intent of the blasphemy laws - the rather quaint notion that debate and discussion should be conducted in a polite and inoffensive manner. Flawed as such laws are, I don't agree they are necessarily incompatible with a society that has a healthy free market of religious discussion/debate.

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 11:12am:


The generals are the ones cynically drumming up the Islamists to destroy their political opponents. Just look at who the Islamists are campaigning for in the next presidential election - yup, the ex-general.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 8:45am:


Don't want to answer eh?

What other Muslim nations do you believe have a "healthy free marketplace" of ideas when it comes to interpreting Islam? Might as well get a whole list of your lies and misrepresentations....

Do you think public debate only stops being a "healthy free marketplace of ideas" when every single person self censors?

Quote:


In which Muslim countries is it a reality?

Quote:


How do you "demonstrate" people self censoring Gandalf? Quote the things they do not say?

Quote:


That is an idiotic strawman of my argument, a demonstration that you, most likely because you are a Muslim, have no concept of the value of free speech or the threats to it.

Islam has compelled you to become a cheerleader for Islamofascism, while deluding yourself into believing you are a progressive.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:09pm:


If it is, then I apologise.

However I respectfully ask how else was I to interpret your blanket accusation that "people" - without any qualification - in Indonesia "will self censor", as a result of the Ahok trial? How many people? All? most? a minority? Surely such details are important for establishing how free religious debate is in Indonesia no? And then we haven't even touched on what "self censoring" actually means in this context. Not blaspheming? Not daring to go against what the quran apparently says and campaigning for and voting for non-muslims? Undoubtedly Ahok lost support as a result of the blasphemy furore - and yet over 2 million Jakartans still voted for him - or 42%, and easily won the first round of voting. And then there were the regional elections a year later I linked previously - where the expected 'Islamic/conservative wave' from the anti-Ahok movement - proved to be a complete fizza, and the Islamists were trounced.

So where are we actually seeing "people" self censoring as a result of the Ahok trial FD? From where I'm sitting, Indonesians are demonstrably not cowering in fear because of what happened to Ahok and obediently letting the Islamists dictate government, society or public debate on religion.


freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:09pm:


Indeed FD. Kinda my point isn't it?  And yet despite neither of us being able to demonstrate self-censorship, you blithely assert with the greatest of confidence that it happens (though to what extent is still unclear - but given that you use this claim as "proof" that there is no free marketplace of religious ideas in Indonesia - one can only conclude that it is a very large extent).

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:09pm:


I would say in most muslim countries. The exceptions would be Iran, as shia Islam resembles more the catholic church in hierarchy and structure, than it does most non-shia muslim sects.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2019 at 10:10am:


I did - and I came to the conclusion that "common sense" would tell me that if the entirety of Indonesian society really is an "Islamofascist oppressive shithole", with apparently no sign of a healthy free market of religious ideas because of the blanket rule that "people will self censor" on religious matters - that must mean everyone in society, or very close to it.

Are you now saying this is not the case?