The legal profession this week lost one of our best and bravest. Pretending to be potential clients in a matrimonial case, two people entered the law firm of Rashid Rehman Khan and shot him to death. Rashid Rehman, a coordinator for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), had faced death threats for years after he courageously represented a university professor accused of blasphemy. Unable to kill the accused, Islamic extremists appear to have now killed the lawyer. Rehman never flinched in his commitment to the rule of law and to this country.
Pakistan’s continued prosecution of people for expressing their views of faith remains one of the great outrages of our generation. Pakistan is one of our allies that has worked with the Obama Administration to create a new international blasphemy standard. The continued crackdown of anti-religious speech is part of its long-standing blasphemy abuses. For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.
We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.
The case involving Rehman is typical and disgraceful. Junaid Hafeez, a lecturer at Multan’s Bahauddin Zakariya University was accused of defaming the prophet Mohammed on social media last year. No one would represent the professor until Rehman stepped forward. He was greeted at court with threats against his life. Three lawyers representing the complainant confronted him and reportedly one told him “You will not come to court next time because you will not exist anymore.” Notably, these threats were reportedly made in front of a judge who took no action against those making the threats — an outrageous violation of every principle under the rule of law.
Pakistan (one of our largest recipients of aid) continues to jail people who simply express their faith or views on religion.
There are at least 16 people in Pakistan are on death row for blasphemy and in 2012 the Center for Research and Security Studies found that more than 50 people accused of blasphemy have been lynched since 1990.
This brave lawyer is now dead and the judge who took no action on the threats continues to sit on cases and those lawyers who allegedly threatened him continue to practice law. Putting aside our earlier work on an international blasphemy standard, the question is why we continue to send billions to countries that aggressively fight the core civil liberties that defines not just this country but the rule of law. The death of this extraordinary man is a disgrace not just to Pakistan but those who dismiss blasphemy prosecutions as simply some local or domestic concern. It is not just the denial of due process but the denial of free speech and free exercise — rights that should be guaranteed to all as a basic matter of human rights.
Source: ABA Journal
Paul Schulte, your second definition of agnosticism actually describes deism; “Classical deism held that … God created the world and set it in motion but does not actively intervene in individual human affairs.”
Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term “agnostic” (from the prefix “a-” meaning “not” and “gnosis” or “knowledge”), meant by it that the existence / nature of any deity/lies is unknown and probably unknowable.
“(T)he basic tenant of Christianity is a belief that Jesus is God. If you believe he is a prophet, Islam is a good religion to join. If you don’t believe he existed, there are many.”
Difficult as this may be, I have to agree with Paul Schulte 100% on this one. To be a Christian, one must believe that Jesus was Christ, son of God. There’s no getting around it. The root word of Christianity is Christ, for cryin’ out loud.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, who apparently believe the way to heaven requires thoroughly annoying the rest of humanity, would fall under the umbrella of Abrahamic religions that include Judaism, Islamic, and Christian religions, none of whom want to bothered by JW’s. So, stop knocking on our doors. Please.
BTW, Paul, it’s customary to cut and paste any statements you reference in a comment. It’s not a cut and dried requirement but it helps the rest of us follow the conversation. I say this because you take Supak to task for statements he made concerning Watergate and the IRS, and many of us, some of us…well, me, have difficulty evaluating the competing claims. What, precisely, are you taking issue with?
RTC – you would have to specifically point out each issue that you are having. I usually have a conversation with one person at a time and my response is to that person, I am not concerned with keeping everyone in the loop, so to speak just to them. One of Supak problems is that much of his stuff got disappeared and I am not sure if it is stuff I referred to or not. This could cause some confusion for outsiders.
Dredd – there are two form of agnosticism. 1) you don’t believe in the existence of God, but you don’t disbelieve either 2) you believe in the existence of God, but that God takes no active part in the world. I belong to group 2.
In my faith, we basically keep to ourselves and don’t push ourselves on others. It’s one of the reasons I cherish it.
Paul Schulte
Jill45 – I am agnostic. However, the basic tenant of Christianity is a belief that Jesus is God. If you believe he is a prophet, Islam is a good religion to join. If you don’t believe he existed, there are many.
You can put a handle on a printing press but that does not make it portable. Just because someone calls themselves Christian, does not mean they really are.
———————–
Dredd – it is my contention that ALL Christian groups, by definition must belief Jesus is/was God.
=======================
An agnostic (“a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable” – Dictionary) who sounds a bit Rummy: “[A]s we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.”
Wonderwoman – are you also Jill45?
“Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are We?
We come from hundreds of ethnic and language backgrounds, yet we are united by common goals. Above all, we want to honor Jehovah, the God of the Bible and the Creator of all things. We do our best to imitate Jesus Christ and are proud to be called Christians.” –JW website
JW were persecuted by Hitler. They are Non Trinitarians.
Jehovah’s Witnesses say this “So we do not worship Jesus, as we do not believe that he is Almighty God.”
Rashid Rehman would have defended their right to their religion anyway.
By your working definition, I suppose you believe that.
Paul is mistaken. Paul is not the expert on Christian faiths. That is very evident.
belief = believe
Paul Schulte
Dredd – it appears that one of the groups believes Jesus is/was God.
===================
Yes, I would venture to guess that most Christian groups do.
Dredd – it is my contention that ALL Christian groups, by definition must belief Jesus is/was God.
Help Help Help the spam monster keeps eating my posts
Paul Schulte
… If you believe he is a prophet, Islam is a good religion to join …
====================
The lawyer who the fundies assassinated would defend your right to your religion or no religion.
According to the text of Matt 24, it is prophetic so Jesus was indeed a prophet:
(Message of Science & Religion – Western – 2, quoting CJB version). If some people want to be Christian and believe Jesus was only a prophet, who are you to tell them to join Islam not Christianity?
The lawyer who lost his life, the one this post is about, would have defended their right to their beliefs.
Dredd – it appears that one of the groups believes Jesus is/was God.
Jill45,
Thank you, I’ve learned something new.
Paul, I am a Christadelphian. You sound very uninformed about Christians.
http://www.christadelphia.org/belief.htm
Paul,
Well that would make you appear to be discriminating against other Christian churches. Your particular brand of Christianity isn’t the gold standard.
Jill45 – I am agnostic. However, the basic tenant of Christianity is a belief that Jesus is God. If you believe he is a prophet, Islam is a good religion to join. If you don’t believe he existed, there are many.
You can put a handle on a printing press but that does not make it portable. Just because someone calls themselves Christian, does not mean they really are.
I ‘ll leave it to the Christians to ascertain Jesus’ status as god. In my case, he was sent by God with a message, which makes him a prophet. So calling him a prophet is not wrong.
Paul, look up Non -Trinitarians. These are Christian churches who don’t believe Jesus was God. Get educated before spouting off.
Jill45 – When Mohammed created Islam were the Non-Trinitarians around? Since the divinity of Jesus is a central tenant of Christianity, I find it hard to accept any church that does not accept the divinity of Jesus as Christian.
Repeating:
Paul Schulte said, “You can hope that the Libtards try to rescue Hillary and the WH from the coming disaster, but with good luck that is not going to happen.
“Libtards”. Now that’s constructive. And civil, too.