[tido99]

Just last month, Pakistan's national assembly unanimously voted to expand its country's blasphemy laws, which have previously been used to charge more than 1500 Pakistanis. That doesn't include the more than 70 people who have been murdered by mobs and vigilantes over allegations of "insulting Islam."

Those laws impose the death penalty for "insulting the Prophet Muhammad" and 10 years to life in prison for insulting his "companions." According to Pew Research, 76% of Pakistani Muslims support the death penalty for simply leaving Islam, never-mind "insulting" the religion (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-m...). Apparently a 10th century drawing of the guy is "prophet worship" (which is also punishable by death), but putting people to death for insulting him isn't.

If you think those surveys are wrong, the unanimous legislative support for these measures would suggest Pakistan really is ruled by a military junta that doesn't represent its people. If you acknowledge the polls are even somewhat accurate, I'm curious how you think demanding the death penalty for leaving a religion doesn't make you a fanatic. According to Gallup Pakistan, a majority of Pakistanis said they wanted the "type of Islamic government in Pakistan that the Taliban have brought in Afghanistan" (https://gallup.com.pk/post/32284).

I am genuinely curious what you do believe constitutes a religious fanatic if demanding the death of people who leave their religion and openly supporting Taliban-style government doesn't fit the bill.

There are absolutely (non-Muslim) religious fanatics in India and other places who do terrible things. Conversely, there are many Pakistanis who are not religious fanatics and oppose these fanatical measures. That doesn't change the truth of his point: that Pakistan is plagued by religious fanatics and a militaristic government. All countries have their religious fanatics, but there is a very real difference between, say, 50 crackpots from the Westboro Baptist Church carrying offensive signs and 76% of the country supporting the execution of people that leave their religion.

[nashashmi]

This is not a forum for debate on what constitutes rational and irrational policy.

However If you want to discuss the technicals of whether certain laws are correct or incorrect, please feel free to do so.

Instead, what is being discussed in your post is akin to chiding. Example: “The lawmakers have low quality education and therefore have insensible laws.” By using labels and stereotypes and creating logical arguments that are often fallacious, it leads to head spinning debate.

I will not further this discussion simply because too many logical fallacies exist.

[tido99]

"The lawmakers have low quality education and therefore have insensible laws" doesn't logically follow because "low quality education" is not sufficient to establish that they will make insensible laws. I.e. there are lawmakers with low education who have passed decent laws.

Who are the people who support the death penalty for apostasy or "blasphemy" who are not religious fanatics? If those views don't make one a religious fanatic, what does, and who do you consider to be a religious fanatic by your definition?

There are, of course, opportunist lawmakers who support these laws simply to gain political points. That does not, however, explain why overwhelming majorities of the Pakistani population support the same fanatical policies when polled by the most reputable pollsters on earth. Furthermore, the fact that it is politically expedient to support the execution of apostates and "blasphemers" supports his argument that its voters are largely religious fanatics.

You are "not furthering the discussion" because you refuse to provide actual arguments and instead resorted to calling him a racist without any evidence.