Seems like Pakistan’s religious based operations, or operations of religious nature in Pakistan, can illustrate very well how religious laws are operating via power rather than democratic and civil discourse – hence have no place in public space.. Unless people fancy creating more troubles than there should..
Here we have an example of blasphemy laws in Pakistan where it seems like the crossing between the idea of individual belief, personal interpretations, social acceptance, universality – or the want of the personal to Be universal while it can not, else it would not be personal – come to mix into a soup of wooly laws that fosters pain and misery among people.
This might sound like contradicting some earlier posts regarding legitimacy. It was argued that laws have to be somehow legit to be enacted. In a religious society, perhaps blasphemy and other foggy religious concepts might seem very apt for being legit laws for all.
Yes. I accept that.
However, the operation am referring to is that of evolutionary process.
For example, say in a religiously fanatic place like israel, or saudi-arabia, or pakistan, or iran, or some usa states – where people get laws that are based on beliefs rather than discursive possibilities – the legitimate nature of these could be questioned by minorities, no?
eg – sure, you are the majority, however you can not subject me to your personal beliefs as a social universal law – that is oppressive, no? (if a law can not be reasonably discussed, nor be applied to all, then it is legitimate questionable as not exactly using the rule of law to be enacted – but the rule of jungle power..)
Well.. That is how it seems to me at the moment..