This was utterly disgusting and the reality is that the poor guy never talked I'll of the Prophet(pbuh). The blasphemy situation in Pakistan is really bad and the mob violence is even worse. The blasphemy law itself is shaky at best. Anyone who has a grudge on someone else can claim that the guut or girl blasphemed, gather a large crowd and do inhumane utterly disgusting stuff like burning bodies and beating dead bodies etc. The problem is very severe especially in Punjab and Sindh. A guy was murdered by his security gaurd for questioning the controversial blasphemy law that's how bad it is and a percentage of population cheered for him. Sadly this is the result of brain washing unlike any other. When the Prophet(pbuh) himself entered victoriously in Makkah there was an almost bloodless victory. The people of Makkah were the worst any blasphemer can get since they used to throw trash, filth and thorns at him, hurl abuses at him and when his uncle died, they devised a plan to murder him. So if the Prophet(pbuh) himself was so tolerant, it makes me really sad to see the people who murder others just for speculation of blasphemy. Sadly the best thing that we can do is wait and hope the brain washed masses learn better. Its not like the entirety of Pakistan is that way. Everyone I know was disgusted at this and I hope the majority were but the truth is that I don't know.

Nice taqiyya there.

yeah not really. Go check out the true history of the Prophet(PBUH) from a credible source not online bloggers who are the equivalent of alex jones or steve bannon.

No.

Nice taqiyya there.

I don't think religion is beyond question just because people are psychopathic enough to kill someone for having a different view to them. We're talking about cold blooded murderers.

By beyond question I mean that society doesn't allow you to question it.  Obviously, if you can get killed for it, it is treated as beyond question.  Thankfully, most places aren't that bad, but even in more secular nations, there is an idea that we should not question people's religious beliefs.  

Due to Wall Street the corporate cover-ups are astonishing, political scandals are very widespread in every country. The amount of allegations that jump out of every news outlet about politics is immeasurable. Religion, corporations, politicians, they can get away with it all. But this raping of children is an institutional problem, not a religious problem. These people aren't raping the kids because they are religious, it would be a fallacy to claim so.

If it is a religious institution, then it is also a religious problem.  You can't ignore the fact that the ideas, aka religion, are enabling these behaviors, and enabling them to get away with it.  And while we often turn a blind eye to political scandals, I don't think any known pedophile would be allowed to go on unscathed.  

Right. Except it's not a fact, it's a belief, and judging by how many homosexual Christians there are in America kinda brings me back to my point that people are lazy Christians or lazy Muslims who can calculate for themselves in a non-proprietary manner that listening to a book in a literal sense isn't the right step to take. That's their decision.

Suppose we completely eliminated the idea that homosexuality is a sin against god.  We could somehow magically obliterate that thought completely.  Would that be a positive or a negative for society?

This is a good point but your point here would seem to pertain only to violent people who could be triggered into a violent act. I mean, 7 billion people in this world and we have a growing population. We've done ok with religion. With 7 billion people comes room for violent engagement whatever the excuse, whether it be religion, sports or dental work.

Sure.  And we should do what we can to minimize violent engagement as much as possible.  

I will say though that I do agree we would probably be better off if religion just sort of went away over time and people got more into sciences and logic and put there money into research as opposed to false prophets and the like.

I'm a little bit confused then... You seem to be indicating that the problems with religion are the results of the institution/individual and not the result of the ideas themselves, but then you're also saying that we would be better off without religion.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but those seem to be conflicting ideas.

I think to argue the catalyst vs the root cause is a chicken and egg situation.  People influence ideas, and those ideas influence people.  Whether it's the cause or the catalyst seems to be a pointless distinction.  The question for me is whether it is beneficial or harmful to the world.

I disagree on religion not being inherently good or bad.  I would say that any religion that encourages any particular dogma is inherently bad.  I would say that dogma is the root of most large scale societal problems, and religion is one of the main sources of that.  Even if the religion was founded on generally good ideas (which I don't believe any religion I'm familiar with is) if it involves dogmatic beliefs, it's probably going to lead to bad results.