[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.