Italian Police Censor "Blasphemous" Websites

FIX THE LINK by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 22:40 · Score: 1, Informative

Page not found

It's not enough to preview you have to check that links are correct

Re:FIX THE LINK by mashx · 2002-07-09 22:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Try this one.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
Re:FIX THE LINK by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 03:18 · Score: 0

Here's the correct link, but there's not THAT much to learn.

Correct link by Majix · 2002-07-09 22:42 · Score: 5, Informative

http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s603070.htm

Re:Correct link by Abstrakt · 2002-07-10 00:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Thanks for the correct link!
What that brief article fails to mention, however, is that blasphemy has always been illegal here in Italy. Believe it or not, you could theoretically be arrested for yelling "Porco Dio" (the equivalent of "Goddamnit") on the street!
The irony is that using extremely blasphemous language is very common in Italy -- much more so than anywhere else in the world. We have some of the most colorful blasphemies known to man; most of which involve the virgin Mary and various sexual acts that would make the other Madonna blush.
Sadly, we seem to have a very different definition of "free speech" in this country. There have been many similar instances of government intervention in the past, as well as privacy violations that would have everyone up in arms if this were another country -- like America for example.
Cheers.
Re:Correct link by Scallion · 2002-07-10 02:14 · Score: 1

Link is correct. I am Italian and quite ashamed of this crap. The political site I manage will give plenty of space to the "No Vatican" logo...
Re:Correct link by JCCyC · 2002-07-10 02:37 · Score: 1

Outlawing blasphemy? Doesn't it go against EUHRC rules?

Maybe it's just me but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 22:42 · Score: 0, Troll

Isn't this Italy's business?

Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Patrick+May · 2002-07-09 23:16 · Score: 1, Redundant

It's just you.
"Italy" is not a monolithic entity. If some Italians don't want to view that kind of material, they should refrain from going to those sites. No one should tie up good Catholics and force them to view websites against their will.
Stopping the use of force against people who are doing nothing more than publishing words should be the "business" of everyone who values freedom.
Patrick
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Majin+Bubu · 2002-07-09 23:39 · Score: 1

Italy might not be a monolithic entity, but neither is the world and /.ers should not be surprised that US laws don't apply to the rest of the world.
As somebody pointed out, our very Constitution forbids blasphemy (against ALL religions, not just Catholic) so the police merely followed the law.

--
Ander
@=
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Patrick+May · 2002-07-09 23:59 · Score: 1

Heck, it seems that U.S. laws don't always apply in the U.S., unless some government agent allows them to.
My basic point is that sending men with guns to use force against men with words is a gross overreaction and not the act of freedom-loving people. It should be condemned regardless of where it happens.
Regards,
Patrick
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:29 · Score: 0, Insightful

since when have americans held back from matters just because it wasnt their business?

alessandro
from italy mind you. Long live www.porcamadonna.com!
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by @madeus · 2002-07-10 02:36 · Score: 2

I'm not an American (I'm British) but it most certainly is their business and ours whenever other human beings are being oppressed without due cause.

Europe still remembers what happens when you let other countries get away with doing whatever they like unchecked. Italy in particular should remember this after the part the Italian army played in oppressing citizens of other countries in the last century. This, against the background of what the Israeli's are doing to Palestinians (and vice versa), and to what the Chinese and North Koreans are doing to their citizens is still relevant today.

On a separate point the entire idea is (almost) laughable as Italy still suffers from a corrupt government and business culture also prevalent throughout the judicial system. Admittedly it's a bit better that in was in the 90's but the Italian police would do better to spend more time focusing on there own corrupt judges, politicians, civil servants and police officers rather than concentration on futile and nasty, oppressive action like this (for which Italian culture has an particular tolerance for).

Time and again Italian judges, policemen and politicians have had formal charges of serious fraud, murder and of colliding with the Mafia laid against them - as an key example crooks like Giulio Andreotti (7 time prime mister of Italy) as devout Roman Catholic has been continually and repeatedly supported and defended by the Christian Democrat's in government and by the the Church.

Italy was the same country that imprisoned Galileo under house arrest for life and refused him all medical treatment for daring to suggest that Copernicus had been right and that the Earth went around the Sun - because it was deemed blasphemous. It is of note that the Vatican only admitted it was wrong in 1992, 350 years after his death. Quite frankly it's about time Italy stopped living in the middle ages and stopped persecuting it citizens for not following a decreed religion.
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:46 · Score: 0
1. Why do you assume there are no italians on slashdot?
  
  ((insert 'you mess with one of us you mess with all of us' comment here))
2. It is only logical to be worried every time any foreign government starts out on the slippery slope of government control and censorship, for your own safety. Do you remember what happened last time that Italy abandoned human rights and embraced a totalitarian government? That's right, they tried to conquer europe. I think it's reasonable to be worried if Italy or any other country makes even a single step down that path again.
3. Even if americans have no right to intervene, it is interesting, and thus it makes sense for this to be posted on Slashdot, a "news" site.
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:47 · Score: 0

I told you don't ever ask me about my business!

--Italy
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Minix · 2002-07-10 03:45 · Score: 1

| Italy was the same country that imprisoned Galileo under house arrest for life...
I'm trying to keep out of this, but ... IIRC Italy as a country didn't exist until sometime in the 1860s, so they could hardly have imprisoned Galileo.
Yeah, ok, so my religion is pedantry.

--
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." Ed Howdershelt
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by @madeus · 2002-07-10 05:18 · Score: 2

Yes that's true but I'd say that's a insignificant minor technicality in the same way that the United Kingdom was only 'created' in 1801 and it's perfectly resonable to refer to that area as "Italy" even when refering to events in the middle ages - the Romans themeselves called the area "Italia" over 2000 years ago.

PS: This is not intended to be an attack on the Cathloic religion, as a disclaimer I am a rather militant atheist and dislike them all for the same reasons, but I'm more trying make a point about (a) the idea of seperation between state and religion is a good thing and (b) people being responsible for the behaviour of each other.

In Europe we are still not very good at keeping tabs on each other (witness the American intervention that was required in Bosnia because we were all sitting around bickering and arguing over what to do while atrocities and mass genocide was being commited), but with the help of the EU we are improving....

Sadly I live in one of the more isloated parts of the Union (Britian) where the Moronic Majority still remain skeptical of the whole EU idea (thanks partly to our historial isolation, and in no small part to News International who control the press over here and are constantly publishing the notion that the whole European intergration idea is a bad thing and trying to convince people that everybody else thinks that do, when in reality the journalists disagree with that viewpoint but are being told to take that line by Rupert Murdoch who personally does like it because he's liable to (a) be forced to pay taxes again in the UK and (b) come under fire from anti-monopoly legislation).

But *ahem* that's another rant.. ;)
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Nutello · 2002-07-10 05:22 · Score: 1

Wow, you couldn't possibly fit any more stereotypes in so little space. You missed only pizza and spaghetti.
Italy was the same country that imprisoned Galileo under house arrest for life and refused him all medical treatment for daring to suggest that Copernicus had been right and that the Earth went around the Sun - because it was deemed blasphemous.
A clue for you: Italy didn't even exist in Galileo's days. Maybe it's time for you to get some dust off those history books. Galileo was persecuted by the Inquisition, not by the Italian government, which simply didn't even exist in the first place.
Quite frankly it's about time Italy stopped living in the middle ages and stopped persecuting it citizens for not following a decreed religion.
Another clue for you: the movie "Visions of ecstasy" has been banned in the UK since 1989 on the very grounds of blasphemy. In Italy that can't happen anymore, by law - at the very most they can restrict movies to mature audiences. Who's talking now?

There's a satirical monthly publication in Tuscany that, among the others, has mocked the Roman Church for the past thirty years. I'm not simply talking of light jokes, there's also plenty of highly graphical comics. I can't find any of the worst examples online, only a mild yet blasphemous cover from two years ago, a few comics and this month's quite blasphemous cover (foul language ahead):

"DANGER - PEDOPHILE PRIESTS
"KIDS, WATCH OUT FOR THE ROSARY BEADS/BALLS
"If they have hair, leave them alone!"

"Kids, come in! It's time for rosary!" "Yes, yes.. that's what he always says, but then after each time our asses are just a constant fizz!"

Or this:

"MIRACLE! BERLUSCONI APPEARS TO THE MADONNA
"and says to her:
"I WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER SON
"to save Italy from communism
"BUT THE MADONNA TOLD HIM TO FUCK OFF!"

Somehow that's not censored and it's sold in all newsstands in Tuscany and nearby regions (it's not written in proper Italian, but a few Tuscan dialects, mainly Livornese). You can read those titles at pretty much any corner in, say, Florence.

How do you explain that?
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Mobster75 · 2002-07-10 09:07 · Score: 0

I'm Italian... and American (dual national)... However, remember Italy is run mostly by socialists and the communist party is reasonably strong there.

Couple that w/ the fact that 97% of Italians are Catholic and the current situation is clear..

- mobster75!
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by @madeus · 2002-07-10 23:18 · Score: 2

For reference to your defense of the imprisonment of Galileo (as in "who was responsible"), see my previously post about the United Kingdom only coming into existence in 1801, in much the same way as Italy only "came into existence" in the 1860's

As I've also already said above in a previous post, the Romans referred the area known as "Italy" as "Italia" over 2000 years ago! Italian culture is not a culture that suddenly popped ino existence, it is a region that has shared a common culture for over two thousands years, like all culture it has continued to evolve and change, but it is still a shared culture as it was 2000 years ago.

Obviously I'm not suggesting *your* responsible, but your region's earlier religion dominated culture was and that dominance of religion in that culture still survives today. We all have responsibility for the actions of others in our society and if we do or say nothing then we are complicit in those actions. This recent action is clearly and example of the church exerting undue influence on the government on a police force that would do better to concentrate on other areas and so thusly to the detriment of your country (and so to the detriment of Europe as a whole which most certainly is my business!).

I was not surprised by your response, but was pleased to see that, as I suspect, Europeans are apparently less touchy than Americans on the subject of critisizim as you were the only person agitated enough by my comments to reply in such a defensive fashion (although given recent events, the Americans might be excused).

But to be clear, my post was not Flamebait nor a Troll - *EVERY* country has very serious social problems that needs to be addressed and we *must* admit to our own societies failings or they will not be addressed. It's of extreme importance now that Europe is pulling closer together, as any country not advancing itself culturally and reforming bad legislation quick enough is not seen to be pulling it's weight and is acting as a drag on the other nations.

As you point out, in the last century, film censorship was one of ours. Numerous films were banned and deemed unfit and shocking thanks to the 'Mary Whitehouse' mentality (sorry you'll have to look that reference up yourself:) that prevailed in film censorship long after the next generation had ceased to be shocked or even care about the films in question, but that's an act of typical British reservation for you, we have the same lingering attitudes towards sex and pornography censorship for the same reasons.

In the same way, Italy has serious issues with the separation of church and state and a separate more serious issue with corrupt officials. It needs to address these issues are reform it's legislation. If it doesn't do it in a timely enough fashion, it may discover that Europe will reform it for them (as the EU has done for many countries already in more pedestrian matters). I won't list all the failings of both our countries, we all know what our own societies cultural failings are and Europeans tend to have a pretty good grasp of our neighbors cultural failings ;).

Which brings me neatly on to the next issue, you took offense at my use of Stereotypes. Well clearly stereotypes exist for a reason - they stem from truth and we are all the better for not hiding from them. I'm a Scotsman who, quite frankly, is a bit of a fat bastard and like's to drink. Should I ignore that and take offense at that stereotype, or should it trouble me and cause me to address that fact that Scotland has the worst instances of deaths from heart disease in Europe?

I would say that you need to turn round and address your own region's issues and admit to it's failings rather than being defensive about them.
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Nutello · 2002-07-11 02:34 · Score: 1

Italian culture is not a culture that suddenly popped ino existence, it is a region that has shared a common culture for over two thousands years, like all culture it has continued to evolve and change, but it is still a shared culture as it was 2000 years ago.
Nonsense. What would that common culture be?

At the very least you can identify two separate cultures in Italy. One in the North, one in the South. They differ a lot in music, literature, language, cuisine, traditions, etc. Mentalities differ as well. Foreigners are mostly familiar with the Southern culture, because that's where most poor emigrants came from.

The Italian language itself is an artefact. It's just a variant of a Tuscan dialect. Until just a few decades ago, the majority of the population learnt Italian in school or as a second language. Put a Venetian in a Sicilian family and he won't understand most of what they say to each other.

Such a beast as "an Italian culture" is slowly taking shape only now, after considerable migratory flows. Even something relatively irrelevant like spaghetti was, until a hundred years ago, mostly a Southern thing.

If you had studied Italian history, you would be familiar with the quote from the Prime Minister who was instrumental in the Italian unification: "we made Italy, now it's time to make the Italians". Even if the land had been called Italia for a million years, that wouldn't have mattered anyway, because still there was no such thing as "an Italian".
Obviously I'm not suggesting *your* responsible, but your region's earlier religion dominated culture was and that dominance of religion in that culture still survives today.
Which of the several cultures are you talking about? See, in the region of Italy I come from there are still rituals which date back to the period before Christ even (allegedly) lived. The local people have their own brand of christianity, which mixes pagan elements (and after all, Christmas itself was a pagan festivity that christianity assimilated). I don't subscribe to any of that stuff, although I do find it interesting from a sociological and anthropological point of view.

Where's the religion-dominated culture? Tune to any Italian TV channel and you'll see plenty of almost naked bimbos. Walk down the street and see how much women cover of their bodies, compared to other nations.

Both divorce and abortion are legal. And that happened while the Christian Democratic party was still heading the government.

The Roman Church likes to whine almost daily about all that stuff, yet Italians do get divorced, take the pill and watch stupid quiz shows with half-naked women. The Prime Minister himself, Berlusconi, claims being "anointed by the Lord" and a defender of the family as a fundamental institution, yet he got divorced once. Religion is a big deal, sure... but only in theory. Or as a facade. Otherwise Italians wouldn't have been reknown worldwide for their loving skills. ;))

There is a separation of church and state. There's no prayer in public schools. No religion in the national hymn (which actually mentions a Roman general). There's a weekly hour teaching of religion in high schools (often focusing on catholicism, but often focusing on a broad range of religions), but it's not mandatory. I either walked out or started bashing the poor teacher. ;)
Which brings me neatly on to the next issue, you took offense at my use of Stereotypes.
I wasn't really offended by the use of stereotypes. I simply objected to your basic knowledge of facts, which eventually led to your use of stereotypes.

The Italian nation is a highly complex matter. Many say it shouldn't have been unified in the first place, for one reason or another. I don't agree with that, but I do think that it could have been done better and that there's still a long way to go.

And just because the Vatican happens to be in Rome and lots of Italians go to church on Sundays or claim being religious, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Church is a key factor in an Italian's life. Unless he/she decides to, of course.
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by @madeus · 2002-07-11 05:09 · Score: 2

You clearly are extremely hypersensitive to the entire subject.

I see you persist in denying that there is a common Italian culture.

There is such a thing as French, British and American cultures (and even separate Scottish and English cultures, which make up British Identity) but you think Italy is unique and assert that it does not have one. Well, it has a common culture whether you realise it or not and a bit of traveling to several different countries in Europe and to different parts of the US (East coast vrs. West coast) has made that clear to me.

Studying a regions laws, the way they do business and life styles of it's citizens is something that everyone who has access to a library or an uncensored internet connection can do and so ignorance is a poor excuse.

Your comments lead me to wonder how much time you actually spend studying your own politics and looking at other cultures as your responses seem knee jerk and poorly thought out, and are the sort of thing I'd expect to read in News International Tabloid.

The Italian populous let their government get away with being corrupt (taking bribes) colliding with organized crime (which the police have been too afraid and corrupt to tackle properly) and covertly murdering each other, journalists and case prosecution witness for years, you've been a poorer country because of it and religion most definitely interferes with the state despite what you think.

Italy has away from addressing this, which is why Italy has had to face many of the problems it has had in the recent past, particularly with reference so some of the scandals of the 90's. The fact the Italy did not address these problems is the reason it lags behind economically behind other European countries like France, the UK and Germany. Italy has a well educate populace with good infrastructure. If it can escape some of it's cultural pitfalls (white collar crime, corruption and the tolerance of it) then there is no reason it could not continue to grow has it has done in the late 90's.

However unless it persists in cleaning up it's act then it has little hope and I can't help but feel the election of it's current Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (the countries richest man who owns the majority of Italy's news, radio and newspapers and has faced numerous corruption allegations) is a shot in the foot for good governance, and Italy's future development. In fact, his election was act of downright stupidity (IMHO) by the populous and was criticized by main stream press the world over.

You can ignore that (and the fact that is is a legacy of a common Italian culture) and you can attest that the Church and state are separate all that all you like, but exactly how do you explain not only all the scandal's of the 90's and your government shutting down web sites on charges of "blasphemous" web sites? Certainly police charges of Blasphemy would never be brought against a web site UK, nor can I see such a thing happening in other countries (like Germany, France, Denmark, Austria, the USA, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand....) - it's the sort of thing that goes on in fundamentalist religious countries like Iraq, and does NOT belong in Europe!
Re:Maybe it's just me but.... by Nutello · 2002-07-16 03:31 · Score: 1

I see you persist in denying that there is a common Italian culture.
Maybe because I know what I am talking about, namely that there doesn't happen to be one?
Well, it has a common culture whether you realise it or not and a bit of traveling to several different countries in Europe and to different parts of the US (East coast vrs. West coast) has made that clear to me.
And again, what would the traits of that culture be?

For your information, I've travelled all over Europe and have been living in the US for almost three years now.
Studying a regions laws, the way they do business and life styles of it's citizens is something that everyone who has access to a library or an uncensored internet connection can do and so ignorance is a poor excuse.
Exactly! There's no excuse for your ignorance. You should really start looking into the issues before spouting truths which really aren't so.
Your comments lead me to wonder how much time you actually spend studying your own politics and looking at other cultures as your responses seem knee jerk and poorly thought out, and are the sort of thing I'd expect to read in News International Tabloid.
YOUR responses are poorly thought out here. You haven't done any substantive research, yet you draw sweeping conclusions.

For example, you mentioned "Mafia". That's a misnomer, you should be talking of organised crime. Mafia is just one of such organisations, with roots in Sicily. There are others, like camorra and ndrangheta, which were born out of different social contexts, are structured differently and involve different issues. Your sweeping generalisations make a complex matter look trivial. And Italy's problems have been compounded throughout history by exactly that behaviour: excessive simplification and failure to fairly assess issues.

Don't lecture me if you don't even know the differences between mafia and e.g. camorra.
Italy has a well educate populace with good infrastructure.
Which Italy? Southern Italy lags behind. The working force there is not as trained as in Northern Italy. That's a fact. Do some research and you'll see I'm not making up stuff. There still are kids who drop out of school when they're 10 or younger.

Infrastructure? Ahah, you must be kidding. Let's take a look at railways: they're much "denser" in Northern Italy. The mainland railway has two tracks, while the railway in Sicily has only one track and you can imagine the consequences.

Do you follow the news? There's no water right now in Southern Italy. Lorries are being used to bring it from the North. Do you call that a good infrastructure? It's even more depressing if you consider that it was the Romans that had mastered moving water from one place to the other.

The sad reality is that nobody wants to do business in Southern Italy, because there's no decent infrastructure there. For decades the government has been trying to pour huge amounts of money to solve the divide. It didn't succeed probably because it wasn't a focused effort. It subsidised Fiat and the Agnelli family, mainly. And to add insult to injury, Southern Italy actually pays slightly more in taxes than the North, despite being poorer and labelled as a mass of tax evaders.

I was born there. I know how things work there. I know how it feels to live there. You obviously don't. At least have the decency to delve deep enough into the issue, otherwise don't bother at all. Get a book or two - don't stop at newspapers, they're too superficial and too concerned with what amounts to gossip these days.
If it can escape some of it's cultural pitfalls (white collar crime, corruption and the tolerance of it) then there is no reason it could not continue to grow has it has done in the late 90's.
Gee, you JUST DON'T GET IT. White collar crime is not the problem or the cultural pitfall. I wish it was that trivial; Italy would be much better off. We'd root it out and live happily. Unfortunately it's not like that.

Corruption didn't grow in the 90's. If anything, it shrank for a while. It's always been there and actually was more rampant in the 80's. During the 90's it might have gained more visibility, but we don't judge things by their mere appearance, do we?

Anyway, as I said, that's not the problem. It's the symptom. If there's blood in your feces, you don't fix the problem by simply removing the blood from them. You find where that blood comes from and solve the matter at the root.

Same with corruption in Italy. It's a consequence of older, deeper ingrained and more complex problems. You seem to be too obsessed with Italy's moles on its face. I'd rather be concerned about the cancer throughout its body first.
In fact, his election was act of downright stupidity (IMHO) by the populous and was criticized by main stream press the world over.
Eh, now you lecture me on Berlusconi. I've known about him for 20 years. He got into most Italians' life in one way or another, anyway. I bet I know much more about him than you do. You can spare me that.

I saw him rise in the 80's thanks to his ties with Craxi. Where were you then? Where was the world's mainstream press then? Most of it happened under the sun. Why didn't they criticise back then?

Who were the most vocal opponents? That's easy: two Italians. Comedian Roberto Benigni (of Life is beautiful fame) and, to a larger extent, iconoclast/comedian/satirist Beppe Grillo. That's sad, but true. Berlusconi's political opponents were and are largely unsubstantial. Same for the press - in Italy AND abroad.

I'm even more disappointed than you are about his election - because it's MY country. Yet, can you explain why he was elected? What made stupid electors pick him?
You can ignore that (and the fact that is is a legacy of a common Italian culture)
Little clue for you: for thousands of years in Italian cultures leaders weren't even elected by the people. Only in 1912 the whole male population was given the right to vote (women got it in 1945). Before that, only the very few with some education or willing to pay a voting tax were allowed to vote (and that started in 1882 anyway).

Can you point me to one document describing this alleged "common Italian culture" through the centuries? Just one.

To reassure you that I am not seeing things, with a quick Google search I found a brief essay about the so-called Southern Problem (University of Toronto, Italian studies). It's a good starting point.
but exactly how do you explain not only all the scandal's of the 90's
I explain them with more complex historical and social problems than the wishy washy arguments you bring. I would love to make all of Italy's problems amount to just the scandals from the 90's (which is pretty much all you seem to know). Where do I sign? Even with my blood, it's no problem.
and your government shutting down web sites on charges of "blasphemous" web sites?
First of all, the matter seems to be more complex than what was described in the media's sensational reports. There's not just blasphemy involved, but tax evasion as well (the operation was carried by the fiscal police). The site was more or less seized, not shut down, pending further investigation. And for one site that was seized, there are hundreds of others which are still around. But reporting the whole thing that way wouldn't have been as interesting, sensational and picturesque for audiences worldwide.

Second, in 1995 the Italian Supreme Court ruled that cursing against the Madonna and saints is not a blasphemy and thus not a crime. It is such only when against a deity (not just the Catholic God, but Buddha and all the others as well). The Church didn't like it, but that was the final ruling. Since the end of 1999, blasphemy has been depenalised as well.

Third, as I already pointed out (and you chose to ignore) there have been blasphemous movies which were not censored in Italy. One of them is highly disturbing and graphical and was even financed in large part by a government grant! Yet, the UK has been censoring a movie because of blasphemy for 14 years now. Where's the outrage for that?

Censorship of blasphemy in Italy is more an urban legend than anything else (I've lost the count of how many curses I heard on Italian TV in my life). The burden of proof is on you: just bring me one real example. I've brought you one of censorship in the UK.

I'd rather have you and folks all over the world focus on the real problems, not frivolous stories like this.

URL doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 22:43 · Score: 0

This one does though: http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s603070.htm

Confusion at the Vatican. by King+Of+Chat · 2002-07-09 22:44 · Score: 1, Funny

A quick Google on "Madonna" and "blow-job", "anal", "rimming" etc. will probably turn up a lot of sites.

--
This sig made only from recycled ASCII

Re:Confusion at the Vatican. by tunah · 2002-07-09 22:56 · Score: 3, Funny

Kids these days, too lazy to link.
In short: Results 1 - 10 of about 9,260

--
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Re:Confusion at the Vatican. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 19:39 · Score: 0

I found this site on google: www.papalporn.com

Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story by f0dder · 2002-07-09 22:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Wednesday, July 10, 2002. Posted: 10:21:15 (AEDT) Italian police black out 'blasphemous' websites Italian authorities have shut down five Internet sites which reportedly carried blasphemies against God and the Virgin Mary, following a complaint by the Vatican's newspaper. The paper says a special police unit has taken over the sites due to what it has termed unrepeatable words which accompanied the name of the Madonna. The police have since blacked out pages on the sites, so that surfers can now only find the words: "Site seized by the Head of Rome's Special Police Force, on the orders of Rome's Chief Prosecutor." The paper says the police have also discovered a commercial network which sells t-shirts carrying the same blasphemous logos that appeared on the sites. Print Email

Re:Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:02 · Score: 0

So's ctrl-c / ctrl-v
Re:Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story by sugrshack · 2002-07-10 01:09 · Score: 1

since when is deep linking illegal? the recent /. story on that only referenced Denmark. Are we now all part of Denmark?
or am I just being clue-free and irony-deficient?

--
I can't believe it's not lard!
Re:Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story by Simon+Kongshoj · 2002-07-10 01:45 · Score: 2, Informative

And that story doesn't even say that "deep" linking is illegal in Denmark. All that happened in that court was that Newsbooster was prohibited from gathering and providing news using them. The ruling didn't state anything else about the use of "deep" linking, ie. it doesn't consider anything about whether it should be prohibited to make a "deep" link to some story on, say, a blog or discussion forum. The ruling regards a specific entity (Newsbooster) and its specific practice (automatically gathering news on Danish newspapers' www sites, and linking to stories)
Besides, what in hell is a "deep" link? It's so fucking pathetic to see politicians trying to legislate a technology they seem to refuse to even try to understand.

--
Six sick .sigs, the Number of the Beast!
Re:Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 03:03 · Score: 0

They spelled that wrong. It's not "deep linking", it's "deep hurting".
DEEEEEEEEP HUUUURTIIIINGGGG...
Push the button Frank
Re:Deep linking is illegal.. so heres the story by Newtonian_p · 2002-07-10 04:54 · Score: 1

How can you consider it deep linking when the link is broken?

--
There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't

Gimme! by ciryon · 2002-07-09 22:46 · Score: 5, Funny

1. Aren't there any mirrors? :-)
2. Where can I buy the 'blasphemious T-shirts'? They must be worth a fortune now!

Ciryon

Re:Gimme! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:27 · Score: 0

Here is the link: http://www.porcamadonna.com/index2f.html
Re:Gimme! by seann · 2002-07-10 02:28 · Score: 1

redundant my ass, I want one to be cool and act differnt.

down with the catholic religion!

--
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Re:Gimme! by Soul-Burn666 · 2002-07-10 03:37 · Score: 1

www.deicide.com

God is dead.

--
^_^
Re:Gimme! by EvilAlien · 2002-07-10 05:56 · Score: 2

... from the same country that brought you incompetant fascism (*cough*Mussolini*cough*). I'm actually very offended that the Vatican itself gets its own top-level domain name.

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'

Disagree with censorship by JGoo · 2002-07-09 22:46 · Score: 3, Funny

I disagree with censorship in all instances. I wouldn't seek to take down sites which choose to blasphem, perhaps I would try and educate them. But if they are a lost cause, then they can burn in hell.

Re:Disagree with censorship by Jondor · 2002-07-09 22:49 · Score: 1

IF they are a lost cause AND IF the church is right they probably will.

--
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
Re:Disagree with censorship by Te1waz · 2002-07-09 23:00 · Score: 1, Funny

Send in the Spanish Iquisition..

A session in the 'comfy chair' will teach them not to do it again...

--
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
Re:Disagree with censorship by JGoo · 2002-07-09 23:06 · Score: 1

Send in the Spanish Iquisition..
Noone expects the Spanish Inquisition! Off to jail with you! There is no need to censor these websites though, lies cannot damage truth, only have audience to those who choose to ignore it.
Re:Disagree with censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

Educate?

God, Religion et al has not been proven.

Until then, each person has their own opinion

My opinion is that religion is just a comfort blanket for people.
Re:Disagree with censorship by loply · 2002-07-09 23:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Italians are also in the news today because they stole an important (and huge) religious monument from Ethiopia when they occupied it under Mossulinis (spelling?) reign.
When the Italians became civilized (/ducks) a few years later they promised to give it back... The was 50 years ago, and their government now refuses to talk to the Ethiopian government about the issue.

--
loply.com
Re:Disagree with censorship by Abstrakt · 2002-07-10 00:04 · Score: 2, Informative

When the Italians became civilized (/ducks)
No need to duck... I just wanted to add that we have not become fully civilized just yet. ;)
The evil fascist dictator's name was Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini, btw. Or "il Duce" for short. Unfortunately, he still has many admirers in this country.
Cheers.
Re:Disagree with censorship by Destoo · 2002-07-10 00:53 · Score: 1

If you prove that God exists, he ceases to exist because he is based on faith.

Destoo
(vanishing with a puff of logic)

--
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
Re:Disagree with censorship by JGoo · 2002-07-10 01:12 · Score: 0, Troll

Nice Douglas Adams non-quote, also could be attributed to a nice non-quote of Douglas Adams by another reverend Adams, Scott, in his book, Gods' Debris I think it was called. That is what it was about anyway. God isn't based on faith, God responds to faith, this probably wouldn't matter to old Douglas anyway, since he was unfortunately a rather vocal atheist. He isn't anymore however. One could also say that the worlds ignorance of God, and its continual cycle of denial of sin, finding more and more ways to seek earthly pleasure, is a comfort blanket to those who cannot confront the facts about God. One person said to me, the Bible always said God sis everything nice, and Evil people did all the bad things, but why does God allow people to die. God allows people free will. Free will to kill, or be negligent. He also saves people. God also sent the Angel of Death to take every first born child in the time of Moses. He has turned poeple to salt, and even in the modern age, the Angel of Death still strikes at those who blasphem against the Holy Spirit. Open your eyes people.
Re:Disagree with censorship by scaryman · 2002-07-10 01:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

there is something I have never understood about this argument, could someone please explain how god existed before the creation of man, when there was noone in existance that could have faith in god, so how can could god be based on faith and unable to prove his/her/its existance?
Re:Disagree with censorship by fallacy · 2002-07-10 01:19 · Score: 0

"'Auto da fey?' What's an auto da fey?
It's what you ought not to do but you do anyway!"

- Mel Brooks (History of the World: Part 1)

;-)
Re:Disagree with censorship by Kalabajoui · 2002-07-10 01:21 · Score: 1

I believe that religion is a comfort blanket which
compells otherwise well intended people to do, or support, great evil. Religion is the bulwark behind which people lacking imagination, vision, and tolerance resist change for the better. The censorship of websites in Italy is just the latest display of backwards thinking by the self appointed righteous.

As an agnostic, the only religion I can relate to and support is Deism. Diests take the love, comfort, and answer of a higher power, while leaving behind the dogma, traditions, and culture of nomadic herders from two thousand years ago behind.
Re:Disagree with censorship by JGoo · 2002-07-10 02:11 · Score: 1

Read my post, the whole post was really to dispell this common misconception.
Re:Disagree with censorship by scaryman · 2002-07-10 02:24 · Score: 0

sorry, but your post about this was submmitted while i was submmiting my post, therefore i only read it afterwords.
but what you said does not change the fact that this argument is used by a lot of people to defend there faith( particularly by creationists),who will attack science saying we can not prove 100% a particular scientific law or idea, then answer that they can not prove that god exists because he is built on faith.
Re:Disagree with censorship by JGoo · 2002-07-10 02:25 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Christianity isn't a religion, and it isn't a comfort blanket. It is a state if faith, a state of acceptance, acknowledging your sin, realising how unfulfilled and passive your life has been up until your rebirth.
Unfortunately you have wrapped yourself up in a comfort blanket, by not acknowledging God, by not accepting your sin.
I cannot understand, now that I am a Christian, how non-Christians are able to go through their lives without confronting their eternal destination.
Then I see the MTV generation, so caught up in their worldly treasures, worshipping the science of today. You have the wool over your eyes. The Matrix is a very apt metaphor in this instance, you are living inside of it, and Christians are living in the real world.
I wasn't born a Christian, unlike how many people find a religion, I found my faith through asking questions, God said seek and you will find. You just need ask God for some truth, ask Him now, while browsing /. "Please God, if you are truly the creator of all things, and my God, please show me some truth". If I am wrong, then what harm can come out of this? If I am right, then welcome to the real world.
You can do this right now, sitting at your computer. Noone is doing the talking for you, noone is suggesting things to you, just you asking questions to yourself and to God, and to see if He will indeed answer you.
Ask a question now.
Re:Disagree with censorship by JGoo · 2002-07-10 02:38 · Score: 1

The exact response to your post is "no it does not change the fact that this argument is used by a lot of people to defend there faith" because whatever I say will not change the ways of others.
I can prove that God exist to any degree where you can accept what you see as proof. However, observation isn't proof. That is what is meant by knowing God through faith. People already know that God exists, everyone has a firm, affirmative knowledge that God exists, but we have developed so many ways to push this out, fuelled by the way we live.
You cannot believe what your eyes see, only see what you believe.
Re:Disagree with censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:52 · Score: 0

ez now JT.
Re:Disagree with censorship by tx_mgm · 2002-07-10 02:59 · Score: 1

wait a minute......wait......nope, no answer
next time youre talking to god, tell him i have a lot to get off of my chest. ok?
"in any decently run universe, this guy would have been out on his almighty ass long ago!"
-george carlin

oh yeah, and as for the story that inspired all these comments: what did you expect? organized religion has been doing this for years...

--
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird
Re:Disagree with censorship by Carpathius · 2002-07-10 03:17 · Score: 1

I'd like to ask you some questions. Email
uem2 at mycroft dot cmhnet dot org.
Re:Disagree with censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 03:38 · Score: 0

REALITY ASYLUM
I am no feeble Christ, not me He hangs in glib delight upon His cross Above my body, lowly me Christ forgive, forgive? Holy He, He holy, He holy? Shit He forgives, Forgive? Forgive? I? I? Me? I? I vomit for you Jesu Christy Christus Puke upon your papal throne Wrapped you are in the bloody shroud Of churlish suicide Wrapped I am in the muddy cloud Of hellish genocide Petulant child I have suffered for you Where you have never known me I too must die Will you be shadowed in the arrogance Of my death? Your valley truth What lights pass those pious heights? What passing bells for these in their trucks? For you lord You are the flag-bearer of these nations One against the other that die in the mud No piety. No deity Is that your forgiveness? Saint. Martyr. Goat. Billy. Forgive? Shit He forgives He hangs upon His cross In self-righteous judgement Hangs in crucified delight Nailed to the extent of His vision His cross. His manhood. His violence. Guilt. Sin He would nail my body to His cross As if I might have perfumed His body Washed those bloody feet This woman that He seeks Suicide visionary. Death reveller. Rake. Rapist Gravedigger. Earthmover. Lifefucker. Jesu You scooped the pits of Auschwitz The soil of Treblinka is rich in your guilt The sorrow of your tradition Your stupid humility is the crown of thorns We all must wear. For you. Ha. Master Master of gore. Enigma. Stigma. Stigmata. Errata. Eraser The cross is the mast of our oppression You fly there, vain flag. You carry it Wear it on your back, Lord. Your back Enola is your gaiety Suffer little children to come unto me Suffer in that horror. Hirohorror. Hirrohiro Hiroshimmer. Shimmerhiro. Hiroshima. Hiroshima The bodies are your delight The incandescent flame is the spirit of it They come to you, Jesu. To you The nails are the only trinity Hold them in your corpsey gracelessness The image that I have had to suffer These nails at my temple The cross is the virgin body of womanhood That you defile In your guilt you turn your back Nailed to that body Lame-arse Jesus calls me sister There are no words for my contempt Every woman is a cross in His filthy theology He turns His back on me in His fear His vain delight is the pain I bear Alone He hangs. His choice. His choice Alone. Alone. His voice. His voice He shares nothing, this Christ Sterile. Impotent. Fucklove prophet of death He is the ultimate pornography He. He. Hear us Jesus You sigh alone in you cockfear You lie alone in your womanfear You die alone in your manfear Alone Jesu, alone In your cockfear. Cuntfear. Womanfear. Manfear Alone in your fear. Alone in your fear Your fear. Your fear. Warfare. Warfare Jesus died for His own sins.

NOT MINE.

sod off
Re:Disagree with censorship by Kalabajoui · 2002-07-10 05:00 · Score: 1

Christianity IS a religion; complete with rituals,
prophesies, and revealed divine plans. This semantic game you born again Christians like to play is just slight of hand to hide your Biblical literalism. As a Christian you believe in the old testament definitions of what it is to sin; while using the new testament to overide the old testaments methods of redemption and salvation.
E.G. In the old testament, getting pee on your hand while you take a leak is a sin; which, like all other sins, sticks with your descendents for three generations. To redeem yourself, you sacrifice X number of goats with X amount of incense or what have you. In the new testament, you are forgiven for your sins by accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour; who died on the cross to expiate the sins of all people who accept him as their saviour. If that isn't religious what, pray tell, is?

I don't find my worldview particularly comforting, nor am I discomforted by some human
manufactured notion of sin.

As a non-Christian, I divide eternity into three
parts: The time I didn't exist as a self aware entity, the time I do, and the time when I won't.

Thanks, but no thanks, for your stream-of-consciousness meditation suggestion. I find the quality of the answers from such exercises wanting.

You mean well, but ultimately, the missionary element of your beliefs compells people like you to structure society in such a way as to prejudge
people like me before we meet our maker. I'd prefer to remain silent on issues of religion, but I feel compelled to speak out lest I find myself unable to live by my beliefs under the weight of religious oppression and intolerance.
Take comfort in the fact, as you believe, that God will punish the Italian web sites for blaspheming; but leave it up to him to decide. Sin, and temptation to sin, provide God the useful service of testing souls under fire. If your faith is strong, you have nothing to lose by letting those who don't share it speak their minds. Besides, even within your own belief system, there are those who would try to shut you up as well. By respecting and protecting my right to believe as I will, you protect your own. The truth will find its own level.
Re:Disagree with censorship by JGoo · 2002-07-10 05:32 · Score: 0

If your faith is strong, you have nothing to lose by letting those who don't share it speak their minds

This is quid pro quo what I believe, and what I have tried to make as clear in my posts as possible.
I said we should not judge them, we should not censor them. I also commented why the Catholic church seeks to do this, because they are a false religion.
Christianity isn't a religion. There may be religions formed around this faith, all I know is that I am a Christian. I have no religion, and no rituals.
If that isn't religious what, pray tell, is?

I am not a Bible scholar, and my readings from it are mainly the New Testament. I do not have answers for the majority of questions, I do not know about life before Jesus.
You mean well, but ultimately, the missionary element of your beliefs compells people like you to structure society in such a way as to prejudge people like me before we meet our maker.

I do not judge people like that, I might judge them superficially, I admit, I am flawed that way. I certainly do not think that I am better than anyone.
I'd prefer to remain silent on issues of religion, but I feel compelled to speak out lest I find myself unable to live by my beliefs under the weight of religious oppression and intolerance.

Christianity is founded on tolerance. We do not oppose any other religion or movement, we just show the truth.
Christianity is the oppressed and the intollerated. Read this news article about a Christian teacher: http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/020710a.asp
I can imagine that if she had been a muslim teacher, this probably wouldn't have sparked such a reaction, even in a methodist school.
As for the comfort blanket, Christians are constantly reminded in the bible that they will suffer for their faith, they will be persecuted by many nations. This happens daily in Indonesia, and many other countries.
However, I am strong in my resolve, because I know God will be at my side throughout this.
Re:Disagree with censorship by HP+LoveJet · 2002-07-10 05:59 · Score: 1

And a granddaughter in the Senate, no?

--
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Re:Disagree with censorship by Kalabajoui · 2002-07-10 07:30 · Score: 1

I apologize for assuming you approved of censorship.

I still disagree with you about Christianity being a religion. You have your faith, but you draw it from the teachings in the Bible. I know you want to distinguish your belief system from others that rely more heavily on words and earthly symbols; but to me, it's just a needlessly confusing semantic distinction. I have no religion as an Agnostic, Athiests have no religion, Diests have no religion; everyone else, including you, is religious to some degree. I don't wish to label you so much as accurately describe you for my own understanding.

Christianity may be founded on tolerance, but the missionary aspects of Christian beliefs have a bad tendency to be perverted into a militant style. I oppose intolerance of Christians as much as any other religion; though I know the end result of being outnumbered by those of other belief systems is going to be oppression of my beliefs. As an Agnostic, I'm confronted on a daily basis by consensual rules based on Christianity that destroy the quality of my life.

True, the Bible doesn't make life on Earth out to be a picnic. It's what you choose, or are compelled to feel is right. I prefer a less bleak outlook on the span of eternity I've been given to occupy. To each his own.

You are welcome to your resolve. I respect a man of principles, even if I disagree with him on a fundamental level.
Re:Disagree with censorship by junkgrep · 2002-07-10 08:26 · Score: 2

Begs the question...

I can prove anything to you... as long as you accept as proof what I say is proof!

But in fact, I don't need to even do that, because deep down in your heart, you know that the truth I am claiming is true, is true. You are just trying to find a way to deny it.

See: anyone can play such dishonest word games.
Re:Disagree with censorship by junkgrep · 2002-07-10 08:36 · Score: 2, Flamebait

---Christianity is founded on tolerance. We do not oppose any other religion or movement---

Wait, first you know nothing of Christianity being a religion... and now you're speaking for all Christians about what you do or do not do to "other religions or movements"?

That Chritianity is founded on tolerance is your particular take on it. But there is nothing inevitable about this interpretation: other believers see things differently, and non-believers see lots of both tolerance and intolerance in even just the Bible passages.

---Christianity is the oppressed and the intollerated.---

Come on: this is an off the wall claim. All sorts of groups are oppressed and intollerated at various times. Christianity was born during a time when it (being a minority, though this didn't stop inter-sect persecution) was, but when it became a majority, turnabout became fair play. Sometimes Christians are persecuted, sometimes Muslims are persecuted, sometimes atheists are persecuted. Christianity has no special claim on being singled out for persecution, especially not when for most of the last two centuries in the West, it's been doing the persecution. This doesn't mean that Christianity is, in every form, bad, but having been persecuted also doesn't prove that it, in any form, is specially good.

---we just show the truth.---

That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? You think your claims about Christ and so forth are true: others aren't convinced. So, here we are.
Re:Disagree with censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 12:15 · Score: 0

All I can say is: Jesus Fucking Christ!!
Re:Disagree with censorship by Capsaicin · 2002-07-10 16:28 · Score: 1

People already know that God exists, everyone has a firm, affirmative knowledge that God exists, but we have developed so many ways to push this out, fuelled by the way we live.
I want to believe that there is some God-like intelligence to the universe. But no matter how hard I try, I keep on coming back to the problem that any attempt I make into fooling myself that there is a God, is simply an egregious act of bad faith.

Maybe people who have been indoctrinated (in the most literal sense of the word) from childhood have this 'affirmative knowledge.' Those of us who were not fortunate enough to have been subjected to such indoctrination, however, are left in a universe, where despite our best efforts, where compelling (or even pursuasive) evidence for the existence of a deity is simply lacking.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re:Disagree with censorship by dbrutus · 2002-07-22 08:22 · Score: 2

Perhaps the education they need is in common decency. The combination of pornography and the Virgin Mary is intended to hurt and inflame passion. While hurtful speech shouldn't normally be illegal, it should generally be condemned.

Educate is quite the right word whether or not Christianity is correct (as I believe it to be so).
Re:Disagree with censorship by jechoe · 2002-07-22 08:43 · Score: 1

I was born into a Christian home and I'm glad to say that I'm now free (as an agnostic). Religion is nothing but a social disease that preys on the weak minded and weak spirited and is propagated through fear and inheritance.

--
Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
Re:Disagree with censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 08:53 · Score: 0

"As an Agnostic, I'm confronted on a daily basis by consensual rules based on Christianity that destroy the quality of my life."
...destroy your quality of life? How so?
Re:Disagree with censorship by gmack · 2002-07-22 09:18 · Score: 2

Some of us belive because we have experianced. At this point it's not simple faith anymore.

Unfortunatly the problem comes in trying to convince someone else of my experiances since that person now has to accept what I say as true even though that person has no reason to trust what I say.
Re:Disagree with censorship by teeth · 2002-07-22 09:43 · Score: 1

Read my post, the whole post was really to dispell this common misconception.

I thought your whole post represented a common misconception. There are no facts about god.

...except that there is no convincing evidence for its existence

--
>>>>truth; beauty; unix.<<<<
Re:Disagree with censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 12:42 · Score: 0

He can't see women walking around topless because of your damned Puritan morals. =(
Re:Disagree with censorship by Graspee_Leemoor · 2002-07-22 15:42 · Score: 1

"Diests take the love, comfort, and answer of a higher power, while leaving behind the dogma, traditions, and culture of nomadic herders"

This is religion, damnit, not pick 'n' mix!

graspee

URL by Jondor · 2002-07-09 22:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

The URL doesn't seem to work. this one does.

As it seems speaking your mind is less and less accepted. Ones again the church is at the frontier of squelzing ideas and expressions they don't like.
And more and more I get the idea the world is on a one-way road to new dark-ages..

--
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!

Re:URL by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 22:54 · Score: 0

"...at the frontier of squelzing ideas and expressions they don't like."

"..I get the idea the world is on a one-way road to new dark-ages.."

I wasn't aware that microsoft was a religion?
Re:URL by Jondor · 2002-07-09 23:24 · Score: 1

Not? Believing in a great afterlife isn't THAT much different from believing that the next version will be great, save and will make you more productive..

--
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!

what were the words/logos ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 22:47 · Score: 0

"sites blacked out" well tell us what they were and we can google cache or way-back-machine them !!

You can not keep the voices quiet only pay them off.

Thank God for Landover by GothChip · 2002-07-09 22:49 · Score: 3, Informative

I saw this news last night on teletext. So far I haven't heard what sites have been blocked and it appears to be restricted to Italian sites only. At least Landover Babtist is still up and running. Warning: This site is very funny. And you can still get your Cradle of Filth T-shirts here.

Re:Thank God for Landover by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:34 · Score: 0

hmm
so they will be going after ian paisly next
Re:Thank God for Landover by ray-auch · 2002-07-10 01:15 · Score: 1

Erm, I think the catholics have been after Paisley for years. He's porbably only still around because they figure his ranting does the unionists more harm than good.
Re:Thank God for Landover by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 03:24 · Score: 0

My keyboard just shorted out from coffee coming out of my nose. That site is hysterical.
Re:Thank God for Landover by fishbowl · 2002-07-22 08:56 · Score: 2

I don't think "They" understand that Landover Baptist is supposed to be humorous. Sad, but
it's way under the radar. Kinda like a Beijing
newspaper would print an Onion story as news, and
not realize it.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Relocate by FiendBeast · 2002-07-09 22:49 · Score: 1

Is there any more information about this? For instance, were the pages in question held on servers located in Italy? If so why not simply move them somewhere less likely to care?

Re:Relocate by valdez70 · 2002-07-09 23:09 · Score: 1

Pages are hosted in USA, and still visible if you
bypass their homepage.
Re:Relocate by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:31 · Score: 0

The sites where located on US servers. Actually the sites are not obscured, the police just renamed the home page and uploaded a new index.html, since the only access they could get is to the workstation used to upload the pages.
Any comment on the incompetence of the police (that calls for a "highly technical operation"!!!) is superfluous.
Re:Relocate by macdaddy357 · 2002-07-10 02:11 · Score: 1

Could you post links to them? I would like to see what is so blasphemous.

--
How ya like dat?

whoops! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 22:49 · Score: 0

guess they really wouldn't like the Church of Euthanasia.
then again, not many people do. except me, but im sick.

Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 22:50 · Score: 3, Funny

Hello,

Recently I've been introduced to an operating system known as Linux.

Lured by its low cost, I replaced Windows 98 on my computer with Linux. Unfortunately the more I use it the more I fear that this "Linux" may be an insidious way for the Dark One to gain a stronger foothold here on Earth. I know this may be a shocking claim, but I have evidence to back it up!

To begin with, Linux is based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork. This OS -- and its Linux offspring -- extensively use what are unsettingly called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a computer running Linux then you probably have these "demons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! Furthermore in order to start or stop these "demons" a user must execute a command called "finger". By "fingering" a "demon" one excercises an unholy power, much the same way that the Lord of Flies controls his black minions.

Linux contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?

Consider some of these other Linux commands: "sleep", "mount", "unzip", "strip" and "touch". All highly suggestive in a sexual nature. I know that our Lord cannot approve of these, and I urge them to be renamed to something appropriate to the Christian community. Interestingly "CONTROL-G" (the sixth key from the left of the keyboard) does an abort. To write files a "VI" editor is included. All these are to ensnare the unsuspecting christian who could get tempted by typing "VIVIVI" all day long.

Fourth, Linux uses a flavor of DOS known as Bash. Bash is an acronym for "Bourne Again Shell". On the surface this would appear to be supportive of the Lord. However, remember that even Satan can quote the bible for his own purposes! While I believe Linux may be born-again, its obvious by the misspelling of "born" that its not born-again in an Christian church. Will the lies ever cease?

Additionally, one of the main long-haired hippies involved with the GNU Free Software Foundation supports communism, contraception and abortion. He has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values", and his web site even advocates government support of contraception. He also wears fake halos, and has quips about his made-up church that relates to his free software. I find such blasphemy to be extremely unsettling.

One must also remember that the creator of Linux, a college student named Linux Torvaldis, comes from Finland. I'm sure all the followers of Christ are aware of the heritical nature of the Finnish: from necrophilia to human sacrifice, Finnish culture is awash in sin. I find little reason to believe anything good and holy could arise from this evil land.

Finally, let us remember that there is an alternative to using the Satan-powered Linux. I think history has shown us that Microsoft is quite holy. I'm told that its founder, William Gates is a strong supporter of our Lord and I encourage my fellow Christians to buy only his products to help keep the Devil at bay.

I wish I had more time to expound upon my findings. Unfortunately a family of Jews has moved in across the street and I must go speak to them of Jesus Christ before they are condemned to eternal hellfire.

Please investigate this as you see fit and I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusions that I have.

Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by rasactive · 2002-07-10 00:00 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if this is egg troll posting as AC, but this is definitely his post(with some slight modifications). Egg troll, log in and tell us if this is an imposter.
Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by oXiDeR · 2002-07-10 01:35 · Score: 0

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! this kind of stuff always cracks me up, then i start thinking that some peeps ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS SHIT, and its not funny anymore...
Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by fenux · 2002-07-10 01:48 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but this is a rip off of a story i read somewhere else (use google, take any random line and c/p it)... please, unless you are the original author give credit to the ones who deserve it and don't go karma whoring with something that isn't yours. If you would have posted the link, people might be able to read the fulle story
Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by scaryman · 2002-07-10 02:03 · Score: 0

this gets modded as funny?
I read all of this, practially word for word from a page of a website linked to on slashdot a couple of months ago.
it that the way to get my karma back above zero, cut and paste someones website, that i read about on slashdot?

i'm pissed off cause I've just become a victim of downsizing, don't take it personally
Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by Simeon2000 · 2002-07-10 02:18 · Score: 1

Reverse bigotry against groups which it is socially acceptable to mock doesn't help solve anything.
Might get you a few more karma on slashdot though.

--
warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;
Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by DEATH+AND+HATRED · 2002-07-10 04:29 · Score: 1

Bill Gates is an atheist. Theres one good thing about him :)
Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by Broccolist · 2002-07-10 14:55 · Score: 2

Mocking fundamentalist Christians is not bigotry, no more than laughing at believers in astrology or alien conspiracies. Ridiculous ideas shouldn't go unopposed for the sake of political correctness. Nobody's suggesting we censor or discriminate against them, but we're certainly entitled to discredit their absurd beliefs.
Besides, some Christians really are that crazy. Ever see this guy? Check especially his hilarious South Park review.
(Note: I'm agnostic, myself, but I still can't stand fundamentalists who take every word in the Bible literally.)
Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 18:34 · Score: 0

The irony is that if that one thing about him were reversed, everything that you hate about him might also be reversed.
Re:Is Linux Illegal in Italy? by Simeon2000 · 2002-07-12 01:07 · Score: 1

Being an agnostic isn't special. Criticizing and hating those who believe the Bible in its entirety isn't special either.

Again, more karma points tho.

--
warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;

correct link by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 22:51 · Score: 0

The story has moved off teh main page and is now archived in the weekly section here

Which Madonna? by Te1waz · 2002-07-09 22:52 · Score: 1

I hope the authorities are absolutely sure the site wasn't about the well known (and controversial) American Singer.

For all we know she might have had the site created just to get some hype for her next album...

--
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...

Another example of ignorance by Diabolical · 2002-07-09 22:52 · Score: 1, Flamebait

This is another example of blatant arrogance of governments and religious entities. When are they gonna learn that the internet belongs to everyone, everywhere? What would the internet look like if every organisation, religous or otherwise, can block internet sites just because it offend's them?

BTW, I'm not religious in any way, i'm agnostic.

I don't have any problem with "blasphemous" or sexually explicit material because it's all in the eye of the beholder. If there are websites which offend someone then don't go to those sites, if they are visiting them, then they probably want to see the information or images.

I have some problems with for instance rotten.com. Hoewever i don't run around shouting that this site should not be allowed or such. If someone likes these kind of sites then hey, it's their personal business. Who am i to disagree with it..

I'm most certainly not in favor of censorship or any kind of control. The only exception is child pornography. Those kind of things can't be enough censored or condemned.

Re:Another example of ignorance by hofer · 2002-07-09 23:06 · Score: 1

The only exception is child pornography.
Well, I would put in racial, sexual etc. and religious abuse, too. Of course, it is easier to recognise another skin colour, and maybe you cannot see how different the other person is, if he or she is religious. Religious hate speech, however, does hurt these "other people" the same way as racial hate speech does.
I believe that "free speech" that shall not be censored does not include hate speech in many countries around the world. At least that is true in Europe.

--
Score:1, Unread
Re:Another example of ignorance by yatest5 · 2002-07-09 23:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Snipped rant saying everything should be allowed apart from this one thing you find offensive

Have you thought that maybe the Vatican finds these sites as offensive as you find those with child porn?

On the other hand, they might want to keep quiet about paedophilia ;-). Uh oh, maybe the vatican will take down this post...
--
- Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
Re:Another example of ignorance by SerpentMage · 2002-07-09 23:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

And yet again another reason why the Founding Fathers of the US knew what they were talking about when they created the constitution. I am not American, but I keep seeing the "old establishment" trying to take over.

This reminds me of the times when Catholic leaders tried to stop Copernicus and other thinkers, etc.

I am not saying that the websites are in good taste or even right. But to say the sites are blasphemous and restrict the right to make up one's own mind is thinking straight from 1200's.

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Re:Another example of ignorance by the+bluebrain · 2002-07-09 23:24 · Score: 1

I'm most certainly not in favor of censorship or any kind of control. The only exception is child pornography. Those kind of things can't be enough censored or condemned.

Doesn't it make you somehow suspicious if you have a general sweeping rule that covers absolutely everything for a certain subject - and then one needlepoint of exception, where the rule is turned completely on its head?

Not wanting to get into the specific discussion the boogyman kid pr0n, I merely want to point out that other people have other exceptions: blasphemy (this case), violence (images of real-life ritual mass murder are "okay"? Real-life rape vids are "okay" as long as all participants are of [an arbitrary] legal age?), political views (e.g. Nazi memorabilia in Germany), technical info ("how to build a nulcear bomb in twelve easy steps"), etc.

In this case, an Italian site (as I understand) was banned. They might ban an international site for all Italian ISPs, but they're not attempting to close down a site outside of Italy. Unless someone can come up with a general rule that has _no_ exceptions, I figure we're stuck with the moral quandary of relative ethics to no lesser degree than we are off the net. I agree that this article is newsworthy ( /. worthy, even), but only as an example how the 'net is gradually meshing with meatspace, an "overlay" of the 'net onto a broad range of social environments, mores, histories. The Danish issue I find more alarming, although newsbooster is Danish site, too.

--
yes, we have no bananas
Re:Another example of ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:27 · Score: 0

Well, I would put in racial, sexual etc. and religious abuse, too. Of course, it is easier to recognise another skin colour, and maybe you cannot see how different the other person is, if he or she is religious.

I wouldn't. Child pornography is a big no-no because the victims aren't mature enough to defend themselves and are often duped into being a part of it. Racial, sexual, and religious "abuse" is something different. Just because someone calls someone a dumb fucking porch monkey or a jungle bunny or nigger doesn't mean shit. You can call me white cracker honkey or stupid white trash fucknut all day long if you want and I'm fine with it. They're just stupid words. Another problem I have is with those stupid niggers in Africa cutting off the clits of their daughters so they don't feel pleasure. Fucking savages!!!
Re:Another example of ignorance by hcdejong · 2002-07-09 23:30 · Score: 1

Religious hate speech, however, does hurt these "other people" the same way as racial hate speech does
The problem with this is, who decides what is "hate speech"? People could (in fact, have got) into trouble because they repeated verbatim what was written in their holy book of choice. The Koran calls for Jihad, the Bible also contains phrases non-Christians don't want to hear. What is acceptable, and what isn't? And where does it end? What's now merely 'politically correct' may become 'mandatory' tomorrow. 1984, here we come!
There's a tradeoff here between freedom of speech and religion on one side, and the illegality of discrimination on the other.
I'd much rather have freedom of speech (and live with the fact that I can't do much about people being insulted) than "clean up the internet", thus silencing thousands of voices.
In the words of Voltaire: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Re:Another example of ignorance by Diabolical · 2002-07-09 23:42 · Score: 2

Child Pornography isn't just offensive but it's a crime against innocent children who are all too often abused or murdered. Whereas blasphemie isn't a crime against humanity, kiddie porn is.
Re:Another example of ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:46 · Score: 0

Yup, it's nice to believe you live in a country that would never do such a thing. But how do you account for the loss of liberty perpetrated by John Ashcroft and approved by most Americans?

Those who would take away our liberty for a little temporary safety are just fine by us! - the American majority.
Re:Another example of ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:49 · Score: 0

believe it or not blasphemie is illegal in Italy... it is normally not prosecuted (nobody really cares...), but it's illegal...
Re:Another example of ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:51 · Score: 0

This reminds me of the times when Catholic leaders tried to stop Copernicus and other thinkers, etc.

Oh yeah right for a moment I forgot you were there.
Re:Another example of ignorance by hofer · 2002-07-10 00:12 · Score: 1

Abusing a child in any way is a serious crime, and I surely hope it is punished much more severely than any form of hate speech. Putting up a website displaying abuse is a different thing. Maybe not less disgusting, but different.

--
Score:1, Unread
Re:Another example of ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 00:30 · Score: 0

I don't find child porn offensive, but I still want it outlawed.

Actually, I'm all for legalizing child porn, if / when it can be made WITHOUT INVOLVING a child. (Make sense? Go watch the Final Fantasy movie, to see how that may be possible). Of course I still don't want anyone to make "the real thing", i.e. abusing a real child.

The difference? One is harming a child, the other is just some bits (or paint), that nobody is forced to look at.
Re:Another example of ignorance by Pig+Hogger · 2002-07-10 00:34 · Score: 2

Blasphemy isn't just offensive, but it's a crime against definitely not innocent saints and martys who all were abused and murdered (and deserved it, too - don't mess with us pagans/wiccans/atheists/jews/christ scientists!) Whereas blasphemy is a crime against humanity, child molesting by catholic priests isn't.
Re:Another example of ignorance by Rev.+DeFiLEZ · 2002-07-10 01:05 · Score: 1

I think with a discussion like this we have to remember an old childhood saying; "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me"
Many of the examples listed in the parent seems clear to me whats 'ok' and 'wrong' blasphemy words are 'ok' but burning down a church is arsen.
violence (images of real-life ritual mass murder it seems to me that murder is already covered as wrong with our current laws but if the video is leaked out to the media it is 'sometimes' aired. We already see shows about polices chases gone wrong (and etc) on TLC (the learning channel) where it ends in a shooting, you see 4-5 officers shooting a guy until he is dead, and everything is in plain sight. or a camera at a 7-11 tapes a robbery where someone gets beaten, that gets a lot of air time,
Real-life rape vids once again someone is hurt in the process of this, so i just i think its 'wrong'
Nazi memorabilia in Germany Noone is hurt when owning a plate, however hunting down jews is 'wrong'
how to build a nulcear bomb in twelve easy steps ahh this is prolly my favorite, there is nothing wrong with reading these docs, however attempting to create (and definatly using) said items are illegal, I have read 'anarchist's cookbook' a dozen of so times but i have never created anything from those books that i couldn't buy in a store
basically we just have to concider the ppl involved if someone is hurt, physically, mentally, emotionly (yes i guess sticks and stones may not be complete) and the person cant get out of the situation then its wrong, but if you dont like something and all you have to do is close a browser window or just walk out of a room to make everything ok again then let it be.
I am not saying if you walk into a room where someone is getting beat up just walk again, because (s)he (the victim) prolly doesnt want to be there either and that would make it wrong.

-rev this is my opinion, i know it differs from others, and i accept that.
Re:Another example of ignorance by RandomPeon · 2002-07-10 01:09 · Score: 2

Blockquoth the parent's parent:

The only exception is child pornography

And in the US even that exception applies only to actual child pornography, which inherently involve child abuse. You are free to write erotic fiction with children in it or to portray adults as children in a dramatic or pictorial work. These are constitutionally protected expressions.

Well, I would put in racial, sexual etc. and religious abuse, too.

I wouldn't, unless a person is harmed in the making of the work. As others have pointed out, these things are incredibly subjective. The potential for abuse is quite real. The most famous example is the Canadian anti-pornography laws. Andrea Dworkin's book advocating such laws was deemed in violation and banned from Canada. And hate speech is always is in the eye of the beholder. France, Germany, and Italy have such laws, for example, but they have not been against anti-immigrant candidates.

Religious hate speech, however, does hurt these "other people" the same way as racial hate speech does.

This is an incredibly slippery slope. If someone takes a reprehensible position and declares it to based on their religion, I'm no longer allowed to tell them that their religion is wrong or immoral? I can't tell people there is no God, because it might hurt them? Are religious people no longer allowed to tell me I should follow Jesus to be saved? This is the least justifiable one, because people choose their religion, unlike their gender or color.
Re:Another example of ignorance by Greyfox · 2002-07-10 01:15 · Score: 2

No no no. That was the OLD Internet, before Joe Average Consumer found it. The NEW Internet belongs to the big corporation and the government. If you don't believe that, just try doing something on it that pisses either off and see how long you last. The NEW Internet is about selling you shit and protecting your IP. When was the last time you saw a significant web page that didn't have a (usually obnoxiously animated) banner ad? The goal of the NEW Internet is to be the NEW television of the NEW millenium, spoon feeding the consumer the same formulaic mixture of crap and nuclear waste that makes all that money for TV and radio stations.
Don't like the NEw Internet? Think it sucks? Long for the day when you could actually browse alt.sex and post to it without fear of getting 1500 russian live goat porn spams a day for the rest of your natural life? Maybe it's time for a "Members only" solution. It'd be pretty easy to implement an invitation only IPv4 or IPv6 virtual private network on top of the Internet. I'd want to make some changes though. I'd want to require cryptographic authentication of hosts for mail and news postings for one, so that removing any spammers that might get in could be as easy as telling your computer not to accept communications from the offending host. Perhaps an IETF like entity would be in order to deal with such issues.
It would be pretty easy to get the ball rolling on such a system, and I think it's only a matter of time before it appears.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Another example of ignorance by Nomad128 · 2002-07-10 01:24 · Score: 1

Catholic leaders tried to stop such people, esp. Galileo, from teaching their theories as accepted truth because they hadn't proven them well. At all. The academia *hated* Galileo because, in addition to not justifying most of his claims, he went out and proclaimed his own theories as truth anyway. In this way, the Church leaders were actually the better scientists.
Re:Another example of ignorance by TheWickedKingJeremy · 2002-07-10 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Those who would take away our liberty for a little temporary safety are just fine by us! - the American majority.

Not sure I can speak for the majority, but I certainly do not feel that my liberty has been taken away...

Making it easier to approve wiretaps, etc is perfectly acceptable IMHO given the challenges imposed by our enemies... If you disagree, then you are thankfully also provided for - A new administration could easily "undo" said changes in the future should they not be needed anymore.

--

my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Re:Another example of ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:40 · Score: 0

"What would the internet look like if every organisation, religous or otherwise, can block internet sites just because it offend's them?"

You mean like 2600.org is blocked by the court from offering a LINK to DeCSS?

Every government has evil people in it, including the Vatican.
Re:Another example of ignorance by coalfire · 2002-07-10 01:48 · Score: 1

Equating the likes of Copernicus and other past thinkers with the makers of a slanderous website it ridiculous. The website contributes nothing. Presenting logical arguments on a website is fine and should be encouraged. Anyone can do this with regard for other peoples beliefs.
Re:Another example of ignorance by Kronus · 2002-07-10 01:59 · Score: 1

I can't tell if you're a fool or an idiot. The Catholic church didn't persecute Galileo because he didn't follow good scientific practices! Where did you possibly get that idea? Church doctrine is based on faith, and a belief in the infallibility of the Pope. The concepts of proof and truth are completely irrelevant as far as they're concerned. It was Galileo's contention that you could determine truth through observation that got him persecuted. Galileo's methods might not have been as rigorous as we would expect today, but that's because the scientfic method, as we now know it, was still in development.
Re:Another example of ignorance by hofer · 2002-07-10 01:59 · Score: 1

I can't tell people there is no God, because it might hurt them?
Actually, your question has the answer right in it. Of course you can tell people there is no God, although it might hurt them, but you should not hurt people by telling them there is no God. It is not a word play. You can talk to people in a way that does not hurt them, and you can stop talking if you do hurt them. And no, there is no regular expression to "filter" speech (that is censorware), but you can be compassionate and think.
BTW, child pornography might not be a good reference point, because it is such a brutal and disgusting act of violence, and I do not think that any sane person would promote it as a "form of expression". But trying to define what hate speech is, even if we eventually do not agree (or by not agreeing :), would help us understand a bit better why we fail to live in peace.

--
Score:1, Unread
Re:Another example of ignorance by black88 · 2002-07-10 02:00 · Score: 1

I fully realise the consequences of the following statement, so, Moderators, get ready your fingers:

Blasphemy? Fuck Jesus!
Re:Another example of ignorance by pel · 2002-07-10 02:14 · Score: 1

Your statements on Catholic censorship are misinformed. Catholic leaders never tried to stop Copernicus, and in fact there is record of cardinals begging him to publish his works.

Galileo was censured/censored for mounting a very loud and public attack on theological doctrine with an unproven scientific theory whose design had nothing to do with theology and everything to do with astronomy.

As for the sites being blasphemous, they are, in fact, blasphemous. They've bannered a very graphic porn site with a Catholic icon who embodies purity, virginity, and sinlessness. They have screenshots of women masturbating theirselves with crucifixes as well as other hardcore penetration shots with women dressed as nuns.

Also, I don't see how anybody's right to make up their own mind has been restricted. I'm quite certain other porn sites exist in Italy and are allowed to exist, and that there is no law against "thinking" about blasphemy.

All personal liberties have limits, even in the Unites States, even the right to speech or expression. The only difference here is that Italians are almost entirely Catholic and believe that liberty ends when you begin using it to graphically slander the very religious truth that holds together their community. Note that I said "slander", not "oppose."
Re:Another example of ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:16 · Score: 0

Fuck Jesus? You'll have to get in line behind the 12 apostles. They have dibs.
Re:Another example of ignorance by uncoveror · 2002-07-10 02:33 · Score: 2

Galileo said, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." and that was blasphemy. They even killed Giordono Bruno. I wonder what the websites said that was so awful. Might it have been that the Pope is not infallible?

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Re:Another example of ignorance by RandomPeon · 2002-07-10 02:37 · Score: 2

But who gets to judge whether my means are harmful? Presumably it depends largely on the supposed victims. Such rules would have a chilling effect on all speech on controversial issues.

And then there's the problem that offensive speech is a vital part of public discourse. Sometimes the best way to convince people of your position is to let them have it full bore. Some of the most compelling arguments ever made did not mince words. The Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King's speeches, and the pamphlets of the anti-slavery revolution did not mince words. Sometimes one must make judgements and criticize harshly.

BTW, child pornography might not be a good reference point, because it is such a brutal and disgusting act of violence, and I do not think that any sane person would promote it as a "form of expression"

Child pornography actually illustrates the problem with your position very well. Cameron's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet depicts two children having sex as explicitly as one can in US film. (The actors are of course adults). IMHO it adds to the film substantially; it is a story of passionate love after all. But critics of anti-child porn measures cite this movie as a prime example of the dangers in banning representations of child pornography (as opposed to pornography actually involving children). Should those involved in the film be sent to prison? What about written works that describe sexual activities among minors? Of course, actual sexual depictions of actual minors are and should be illegal but beyond that we enter a dangerous zone.
Re:Another example of ignorance by osgeek · 2002-07-10 03:27 · Score: 2

Right. Even the US courts have said that the problem with child pornography isn't its offensiveness. Virtual kiddie porn, such as cartoons or calling "of age" models "minors" is legal. The problem occurs when you use real minors to create the porn. In that case, you have a helpless victim -- a child.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:Another example of ignorance by tuxedo-steve · 2002-07-10 03:38 · Score: 1

Indeed, it's a common misconception that Galileo ever was `persecuted' as such. Though he was under virtual house arrest, he was allowed to continue his work and lived quite comfortably at the church's expense. Good for him.

Speaking of the scientific method, it's interesting to note that Brahe, who you could consider to have been the father of the scientific method, rejected the heliocentric view of the universe largely because it contradicted what was written in the scriptures. He agreed with Copernicus on most every other point.

--
- SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
Re:Another example of ignorance by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 04:22 · Score: 0

Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus and she was not sinless. I wish that Catholics would actually read the Bible instead of taking for granted that what the Catholic Church says is the Gospel Truth.
Re:Another example of ignorance by Zanth_ · 2002-07-10 06:38 · Score: 1

The dogma of Papal infallibility was only instituted in the early 1900s.

You're comment is a vastly erroneous.
Re:Another example of ignorance by Zanth_ · 2002-07-10 06:52 · Score: 1

Hmmm, since you are AC I won't go too overboard in disputing your claims. Sadly I will at least whip you into some shape.

Jesus referred to having brothers and sisters, in Jewish language (He was Jewish) this most often translates back to cousins or relatives. Why would Jesus have needed James to take care of His Mother if He had siblings? The fact is that there were no others, and so the burden was undertaken by James. You have no proof that she was sinful in any way. The Bible does not once descrive, allude or foreshadow one single event that could be described as sinful. Thus, any doctrine or dogma put forth by the Catholic Church either via revelation or historical scientific research is far more reputable and reliable then some AC who is talking outta his ass. Please oh great AC, give me the passage in the Bible where Mary sins? Give me the names of Jesus' true genetic brothers and sisters?
Re:Another example of ignorance by junkgrep · 2002-07-10 08:15 · Score: 2

I'm getting a little tired of this argument. Just because there was something called "Dogma" that was instituted by the church, doesn't mean that it couldn't have had, and didn't have dogmas beforehand, particularlly in thinking that the church is infaliable. That it wasn't officially declared in one of the gazillion letters the church sends out is irrelevant: the church refused to even consider the truth of Galileo's claims before censoring them, because to them there was no need to: they were right, he was wrong, end of story.
And he wasn't even the worst: the poor guy who suggested that the universe was infinate was put to death. His dying words were something to the effect of "I think you who sit in judgement of me are more afraid of me than I am of you."
Re:Another example of ignorance by pel · 2002-07-10 09:26 · Score: 1

Mary was/is a virgin because she never had relations with a man. That she gave birth to Jesus is debatable as to whether that violates her viriginity.

As for other children, the other poster has identified the situation correctly - the original text is ambiguous on the terms used to describe Jesus's relatives. It is impossible to determine from the text with certainty whether they were siblings or cousins. When such ambiguity exists, an argument is resolved by appealing to Church Tradition, and that reports to us that she remained a virgin.

As for sinless, the Bible does not confirm her as having committed any sin whatsoever. Once again, Church Tradition resolves the situation by reporting that she was sinless.

As for reading the Bible... where exactly do you think the Bible comes from? The canonicity of both the New and Old Testament was decided in a series of Church councils over a hundred years after the last apostle died. If Church Tradition is good enough for you to dictate what books the Bible is composed of, why is not good enough for other truths?
Re:Another example of ignorance by junkgrep · 2002-07-10 09:56 · Score: 2

---When such ambiguity exists, an argument is resolved by appealing to Church Tradition, and that reports to us that she remained a virgin.---

Where does Church Tradition come from, and how can it be in any way distinguished from just more opinions (albiet older ones) about the exact same ambiguity?
Re:Another example of ignorance by Petrus · 2002-07-10 16:24 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the times when Catholic leaders tried to stop Copernicus and other thinkers, etc.

Check your history books. Copernicus was a Catholic priest, leader (administrator of the Krakow diocese and ) and thinker (doctor of medicine), and he had no more conflicts with his peers than you have here with other slashdotters.

During his life he was actually strongly opposed to by protestants.

Petrus
Re:Another example of ignorance by Petrus · 2002-07-10 16:45 · Score: 1

Galileo actually had some "awards" for science from Vatican, the URBAN VIII. His original charts of the sun spots can be found in Vatican achives.

There seem to have been no reason to have problem with false idea of sun being center of universe, since Copernicus had no problems in his time with that - not from Catholic hierarchy.
However, it seems that his acquitances with Pope boldened him enough to be foul mouthed with some powerful cardinals and that probably earned hil the house arrest.

He discovered sun spots, sun rotations, telescope and Jupiter spots and rotation.
He falsely believed that Sun is in centre
of the universe and that planets move on
circles, not ellipses (opposing to Keppler).

To this day, science cannot authoratively say, where is the centre of universe, but most agree that it is less likely to be at the place where Sun is.
Re:Another example of ignorance by pel · 2002-07-11 04:02 · Score: 1

Here is an exhaustive treatment of this subject.
Tradition and Living Magisterium
Re:Another example of ignorance by Graspee_Leemoor · 2002-07-22 16:03 · Score: 1

"What would the internet look like if every organisation, religous or otherwise, can block internet sites just because it offend's them?"

404 - Page not found

graspee

of cause by cyborch · 2002-07-09 22:52 · Score: 0, Troll

IANAL but I think the law in Denmark (where I live) states that blasfemy is illegal and all illegal sites are shut down as quickly as they pop up. So they shut down a couple of illegal sites. Blesfemous or otherwise illegal, they have every right to shut them down and of cause they did, and prolly will do again inthe future...

Vatican independence by FiendBeast · 2002-07-09 22:53 · Score: 1

Anyway, I thought that the Vatican had been an independent state since Mussolini 'bought' their support in the 1920's, so the Italian authorities don't really need to pay heed to what they say or act on their complaints, or am I wrong?

Hmm by tjensor · 2002-07-09 22:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wonder how Italy squares this with the fact that they are a signatory to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which should protect 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' as well as 'freedom of expression'.

ho hum.

--
<fnord>OBEY</fnord>

Re:Hmm by Maggot75 · 2002-07-09 22:58 · Score: 1

That don't mean they can say no bad things about Jesus' Momma!
Re:Hmm by dtosti · 2002-07-09 23:26 · Score: 4, Informative

.. signatory to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [coe.int], which should protect 'freedom of thought, conscience and religion' as well as 'freedom of expression'.

well, Italian government has signed a special convention with the Catholic Church (in the 1920s) long time before signing the Council of Europe Convention (in the 1950s).

This agreement with the Church is written in the Italian Constitution (dated 1947) and it obliges Italy to act against people who dare to slander the common religious sentiments.

Note that "freedom of expression" != "freedom of slandering" !!!

The real fact is: that guy who sold t-shirt with anti-religious sentences will probably be accused not only of slandering common religious sentiments, but of having evaded tax and VAT too, because the "special police force" mentioned in the article is the Italian equivalent of the american ATF (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms) plus the duty of hunting tax evasors.

So, as an Italian, I'm not worried at all for the freedom of expression question, because those policemen works for the Treasury Minister and they receive a percentual on the tax recovered... :)
Re:Hmm by Phillip2 · 2002-07-10 00:45 · Score: 3, Funny

"Note that "freedom of expression" != "freedom of slandering" !!!"

Unfortunately according to law Jesus and the Virgin Mary are both dead, and therefore can not actually be slandered.

The other point is that freedom of religion does not also cover freedom of lack of religion. Atheism is not classified as a religion, and is not protected under the human rights convention in the same way that a religion is. Odd but true.

Phil
Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:19 · Score: 0

Note that "freedom of expression" != "freedom of slandering" !!!

True, but you can't slander an organization!

(from dictionary.com)
Slander Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

In most countries it is perfectly legal to speak ill of organisations.
(except for maybe Scientology in the U.S.)
Slander against people is a whole different story.

I'd also like to point out that Italy is weak on other free-speech issues,
for instance Umberto Bossi getting fined for saying that he used the italian flag as toilet paper.
Yes, he's an asshole himself, but I do defend his right do use the flag anyway he pleases.
(within the extent of infringing others' rights, of course)
Re:Hmm by Phillip2 · 2002-07-10 01:58 · Score: 2

I wonder why the last post get moderated down to -1, given that it's a perfectly reasonable and sensible post. I wonder if it was because it was a little rude about scientologists.

Phil
Re:Hmm by HiThere · 2002-07-10 03:33 · Score: 2

Strangely enough, that's how I became a Druid. You see there was this college that had this rule that you had to attend religious ceremonies, but didn't say which kind. So this guy called Fisher put together this group of friends and they became the Reformed Druids of North America. The group lasted long after the college dropped the religion requirement, though it has splintered into other groups in the last few decades.

Whatever. Eventually I became a Druid with all attendant rites and obilgations. (The main obligation is that I can't resign, and I must agree that Nature is Good [which I usually parapharase as, if it weren't for nature we wouldn't be here, or sometimes it's nice to breathe].) But it got them out of other religions!

This organization was deliberately designed to fall apart, and it still hung together for several decades. People like organizations, as long as they aren't too much bother.

I suppose that the nearest I could think of coming to blasphemy would be a speech in favor of clear cutting. But I don't think anyone would pay me enough to even seriously consider that. So I guess it suits me.

Now I don't like clear cutting. I don't like advocates of clear cutting. I consider them to be intent not only on personal suicide, but on racial suicide (special would be a better word, but that gets pronounced as if it means set apart rather than having to do with a species). In other words I really dislike what they are proposing.

But I also consider that keeping them from being able to say what they think is important is even worse.

The shutting down of web sites just because you disagree with them is, in my book, evil. This doesn't have anything to do with gods or demons or daemons. This is a personal judgement. But I think that this is the kind of act that "justifies" all the jokes that have been being made recently about priests and their "celebicy". The actions may have been performed by the Italian police, but the instigation came from the Vatican.

I suppose that this is sort of like the bad jokes about MS that keep cropping up here. If you don't like what someone does, you look for appropriate unpleasant associations to attach to them. As long as the associations are appropriate, there really isn't much wrong with the approach. It's dangerous because it's easy for unscrupulous persons to lie about the appropriateness of the association, and since it's an association rather than a chain of logic, it's difficult to trace back.

But this is another example of authoritarian evil-doers acting to suppress individual expression of divergent beliefs. I don't think anyone could argue with that. Except perhaps to claim that the police were "only following oders", to use the famous phrase. True, I suppose, but hardly an excuse. Still, if someone didn't want to operate in that mode, why would they remain a policeman. You may *become* a policeman out of a desire to protect the civilization, or the citizenry. But when you see what the job entails, if you choose to remain one, you have choosen to operate as a reciever and distributor of orders in a chain of command. This is true at all levels of the job, except for some narrowly specialized technicians. Possibly under some organizational structures there would also be clerical workers who weren't distributors of orders. So I can't excuse the police from the general condemnation of this activity.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Hmm by nege · 2002-07-10 03:49 · Score: 1

The other point is that freedom of religion does not also cover freedom of lack of religion. Atheism is not classified as a religion, and is not protected under the human rights convention in the same way that a religion is. Odd but true.
Good point. I think that someone should be able to be left to their own devices as far as lack of religion goes. Why try to make someone believe what they do not want to believe in? On the other hand, I really see little value (other than the thoretical value of saying you could do this) in spending your time "slandering" another religion in a completely unproductive way. If you have problems with the Church, fine, protest it. I don't think anyone really benefits from the vulgarity of this persons actions.
Re:Hmm by ebassi · 2002-07-10 04:17 · Score: 1

for instance Umberto Bossi getting fined for saying that he used the italian flag as toilet paper. Yes, he's an asshole himself, but I do defend his right do use the flag anyway he pleases.

Using the italian flag as toilet paper it's, indeed, an offence to the italian flag. ;-)
Go in the US and try to burn the US flag... ;-)

Telling someone to use the italian flag as toilet paper it's the equivalent of istigating someone to commit the crime above, so the fine it's right...

--
You can save space. Or you can save time. Don't ever count on saving both at once. -- First Law of Algorithmic Analisys
Re:Hmm by Ig0r · 2002-07-10 04:42 · Score: 2, Informative

The Boy Scouts of America burn thousands of US flags every year, and have for decades.

--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:23 · Score: 0

No. Saying you have used the flag as toilet paper is in no way instigating others to do the same. Who is to decide what is an offence and what is not? So if I say the flag is stupid-looking and aesthetically devoid of value, can I be fined? Do you really think he committed a crime, and wasn't just expressing himself?

Free expression is a basic human right. The community has the right to decide the standards of decency, but where that standard lies must be well-defined to prevent using the law to punish people for thinking differently rather than for being a public nuisance.
Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:29 · Score: 0

Well, this is the country that if you are blond or a redhead and have 5 drinks in a bar, it is legal for anyone and everyone in there to rape you.

Doesn't apply for those with brown or black hair... Gee, I wonder why.
Re:Hmm by mrseth · 2002-07-10 05:32 · Score: 1

It is perfectly legal to burn a flag in political protest in the U.S. Burning a flag is an extreme form of political speech which is the most protected form of speech under the 1st Amendment. I think it was Justice Brennan who said in the Texas vs. Johnson ruling "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its descration, for in doing so we take away from what this cherished emblem represents..." Of course there are the nutters in Congress who "want to get the patriotic fire burning in their bellies [and make this illegal]" (that was one of the actual "arguments" by one of the enemies of freedom). More and more, I am afraid what was given to us by giants is slowly being nibbled away by midgets.
Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:38 · Score: 0

When did this happen?
Re:Hmm by neocon · 2002-07-10 06:04 · Score: 1

Umm, maybe because said Convention qualifies it's right to free speech as follows:
1. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
(or in other words, nothing in these actions contravenes the Convention, as the Italians can always say that they were acting `for the protection of health or morals', thus getting a bye on the treaties protections.)
Re:Hmm by PastorOfMuppets · 2002-07-10 12:02 · Score: 1

Hoe does one go about slandering the Catholic Church? I mean, they have actualy done almost every nasty thing you could accuse them of. Oh yeah and they don't pay taxes either. In fact since Vatican City is an independent nation, they probably collect taxes (but I don't know).
---

--
If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up you stupid prick.
Re:Hmm by Peyna · 2002-07-10 15:33 · Score: 2

So does the American Legion. They do them the 'proper way'. Actually, burning a flag is the only way to respectfully destroy a flag that is 'past its prime' so to speak. This doesn't mean throwing it in a 10 gallon metal drum in the back yard, pouring lighter fluid on it and torching it. They fold it some way and light it from a certain end, etc. There's quite an ordeal to it.

Thus said, if you do plan on getting rid of an old flag that is a bit weathered (which you should do, flying a weather beaten worn out flag is considered disrespectful as well, actually.) you should take it to the American Legion or other such organization for proper disposal.

--
What?
Re:Hmm by ebassi · 2002-07-13 01:11 · Score: 1

No. Saying you have used the flag as toilet paper is in no way instigating others to do the same

In this case, he told a old lady, who had an italian flag out of her window, to "use it as toilet paper". If some italian says so, I feel very angry: my forefathers died for that flag, and for the meaning it had (and still has), and no moron can say "use [the flag] as toilet paper". It was not a form of protest: it was only a demagogic sentence, used to make some redneck asshole to laugh out loud. Hence, the fine...

--
You can save space. Or you can save time. Don't ever count on saving both at once. -- First Law of Algorithmic Analisys
Re:Hmm by Graspee_Leemoor · 2002-07-22 16:06 · Score: 2

" Strangely enough, that's how I became a Druid."

Admit it, dude, your INT wasn't high enough to be a magic-user.

graspee

The Spanish Inquisition by Te1waz · 2002-07-09 22:57 · Score: 2, Funny

They should have sent the 'Spanish Inquisition'

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
I guess they're tired of hearing this one...
Apologies to Python(Monty) Ltd.

--
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...

Re:The Spanish Inquisition by saintm · 2002-07-10 00:31 · Score: 1

Hmm.. but it is in Italy not Spain.. As tenous links go, you score a 9.6

running apache 1.3.9? get a new admin! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 22:57 · Score: 0

They may be munging the URL, but they seem to be running apache 1.3.9, someone should go down there and bitch-slap their admin before they get haxored

In Italy "blasphemia" is prohibited by Kruemelmo · 2002-07-09 22:57 · Score: 1

As read on the heise article (German), blasphemia is prohibited in Italy - although the authorities rarely care.

article 19 by australopithecus · 2002-07-09 22:57 · Score: 1

italy's constitution:
Article 19 [Freedom of Religion]
All shall be entitled to profess their religious beliefs freely in any form, individual or in association, to promote them, and to celebrate their rites in public or in private, provided that they are not offensive to public morality

as well as article 21, section 6:(6) Printed publications, performances, and all other exhibits offensive to public morality shall be forbidden. The law shall lay down proper provisions for preventing and repressing all violations.

Re:article 19 by Nutello · 2002-07-10 01:21 · Score: 1

Section 6 of article 21 is not that draconian. Or at least not anymore. For the last few years, thanks to the highly controversial movie "Toto' che visse due volte" (Toto' who lived twice), it hasn't been possible anymore for censors to ban altogether a movie in Italy. At most, they can restrict it to audiences over the age of 18.

Wired has a short article about the issue.

One of the scenes that censorship wanted cut - a cut that the directors refused vehemently, which led to the initial ban of the movie - involved a naked-bottom Madonna. The amusing thing is that the movie had been partially financed by grants from the Italian government itself.

Wired mentions Bertolucci's woes with Last tango in Paris, over which he temporarily lost some of his rights, first of all the right to vote. That happened a few years after the movie was released. A judge struck that ruling down in 1982, as in his opinion public morality had changed in the meantime and the movie could no longer be considered offensive. The Constitution, after all, refrains from specifying in detail what "offensive to public morality" really means. This second ruling was triggered by an unannounced screening of the movie at a film festival in Rome - those reels were of course illegal at the time, but they belonged to the German director R.W. Fassbinder, who had died just a few weeks before, anyway...

In this case there doesn't seem to be any ruling yet. They probably picked somebody with not enough resources to defend themselves in court. Or somebody who had breached the law in other ways on the side.

People can still see "Toto' che visse due volte", if they want to. They can still listen to an underground band from Rome, Santarita Sakkascia (a pun on the name of the saint, Santa Rita da Cascia), perform "Santi numi" - "Sainted divinities", a cover of Nirvana's "Smells like teen spirit", whose verses are nothing but a list of blasphemies against God and a bunch of saints. And they can see the uncut "Il pap'occhio", a satirical comedy from 1980 featuring Roberto Benigni, initially cut, in which the Pope tries to start a Vatican TV station to make up for the declining popularity of the Roman Church.

While your at it by Mattygfunk · 2002-07-09 22:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Italian authorities have shut down five Internet sites which reportedly carried blasphemies against God and the Virgin Mary...

Since Bill is the devil is microsoft.com next?

MSNBC are also running the story by marnanel · 2002-07-09 23:00 · Score: 5, Informative

MSNBC are covering the story. It has a bit more information:

Investigators first learned about the sites, with names that translate into phrases including "Pig Madonna" and "Blasphemy," in 2000.

Sooo, if any Italian-speaking Slashdotters can tell us what "Pig Madonna" is in Italian, we can google for it, since it's been up for two years, and find out what the site was.

--
GROGGS: alive and well and living in

Re:MSNBC are also running the story by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:06 · Score: 0

Pig Madonna stands for 'Porca Madonna'.
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:15 · Score: 0

So in German it would be...

Schweine Madonna?
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by dtosti · 2002-07-09 23:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

well...the exact translation of the italian
blasphemy should be "Mary is a bitch", not "pig Madonna"..

sometimes babelfish is more blasphemous than those censored sites...
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 00:01 · Score: 3, Informative

pig=porca
censored site:
http://www.porcamadonna.com/

old index:
http://www.porcamadonna.com/index2f.html
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by Martigan80 · 2002-07-10 00:37 · Score: 1

Well actually "Putana" means bitch. So that mean Putana Madona, but they use Porca madona because it sounds better. They do infact use, well women use "Porca Eva" Calling Eve a pig because she ate the apple.

--
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:32 · Score: 1, Informative

it's

PORCA MADONNA

by the way, our worhty forces of order have only replaced the index page to the site; inside links still work wonders.
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by iapetus · 2002-07-10 01:35 · Score: 2

Just took a quick look at the site, and perhaps those people who are squealing about this being like the Catholic church attempting to stifle Copernicus might like to do the same thing. :)

--
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:28 · Score: 0

You are aware that Madonna is an Italian word, aren't you?
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by an_mo · 2002-07-10 03:46 · Score: 1

not only that, you'll find everyhing in the google cache
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by marnanel · 2002-07-10 05:25 · Score: 1

Yes, thanks. That doesn't mean I know how you'd express "Pig Madonna" in Italian. (For all I could tell, since I don't speak Italian, it needn't even have been as simple as translating "Pig" into Italian and sticking "Madonna" after it: some languages would use the words in the other order, some would combine them into one, some would add prepositions.)

--
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by Danse · 2002-07-10 05:25 · Score: 1

Well, it ain't Copernicus, but it didn't seem all that bad to me. No worse than stileproject.com or others in the same vein. I opened the site in Mozilla and it jacked my cpu usage up to 100%. MP3s started skipping. That was horrible.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by Enzo1977 · 2002-07-10 05:42 · Score: 1

Ok, here's my moment to shine, I am a slashdot reader and I am moderately fluent in Italian. But why not use Babel Fish for your translations? It might give you a few literal translations in the literary or proper Italian form of the language. What it does fail to account for are the thousands of dialects that prevail in Italy as of yet today. Go ahead and type in Pig Madonna and see what results it may give you. Some other variations on that curse are I believe are much like "Porca la Miseria" Pig the Misery? Mind you this again is a literal translation. It more or less means Damn the misery. A dialect variant on that is "Per la Miseria" being "for the misery, or Pella Miserria. Go ahead and replace Misery with Madonna. I know that as a child when mimicking my family in the same curses, my parents were quick to correct and discipline me for cursing in Italian.

--
I hate all sigs, even this one.
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by freeride · 2002-07-10 10:33 · Score: 0

It's "porca madonna". While literally it is "pig madonna", it actually means "the Virgina Mary is a whore" colloquially.
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by Peyna · 2002-07-10 15:29 · Score: 2

Not unless 'Madonna' in German means Mary the mother of Jesus.

--
What?
Re:MSNBC are also running the story by morpheus+2001 · 2002-07-22 19:24 · Score: 1

I just googled and translated the site and this is waht I got. Those damn Romans, whenever anything good happens they always step in and F*CK it up for the rest of us!

I wonder if the "Financial Police" are anything like the IRS here. If they are, then we REALLY have something to worry about!

-----

FINANCIAL POLICE

SPECIAL COMMANDO UNITA'

- Special Nucleus Editoria Broadcasting

Situated http://www.porcamadonna.com Subordinate to

SEIZURE

Proc . Pen. Nr . 27463/02 - Decree emitted in date 26 june 2002

Power of attorney of the Republic of Rome

I'm glad I don't live in Italy (maybe) by qubit64 · 2002-07-09 23:00 · Score: 0

I'd like to know more about why they were shut down, sadly the article didn't quite say exactly what was said on there. That being said, if I want to say "the virgin mary sucks" or maybe something more crude, I should be able to be the idiot I am and do so. There may be a limit as to what I think could be said on a t-shirt in public, and maybe being arrested for expressing certain opinions in public is a good idea. (being charged with a crime wouldn't be quite right but maybe confiscating the shirt or something would be good) Before I get flamed, here's an example: I wear a t shirt in manhattan stating "I love osama" (picture maybe something along those lines but much worse to see what I'm really talking about). Now, some may say "fine, no problem..." but, I'm putting myself in great danger wearing this shirt and for my own protection should be stopped. If I want to wear it behind closed doors or whatever, that's fine, but doing something like that that is just going to incite someone to beat me up. I'm not sure this case can compare exactly, but, it's just a thought.

Maybe a clearer example is two groups of protestors, for example, pro-life vs. pro-choice. If there is going to be a massive protest it is a good idea to keep them FAR apart just to keep the peace. I'm not saying silence them or anything, far from it. However, them being next to each other is not a good idea. Another thing is that GAP group I've seen at my Uni a couple of times showing images of aborted babies. Those people were really asking for it and while I think it's fine if they go out and have some sort of a protest, let people know where they can come for more info, that's fine, but making me see that is just asking for a little bit of the old ultra violence. again, we need to know more info before we can really comment on this...

--
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)

Re:I'm glad I don't live in Italy (maybe) by Branc0 · 2002-07-10 03:48 · Score: 1

I don't get it... *you* are going to be beated up, and that's *my* problem?
Wear the damn t-shirt... the good thing about freedom is that you are free to be an idiot.

--

rm -rf /home/leia
Re:I'm glad I don't live in Italy (maybe) by qubit64 · 2002-07-10 03:59 · Score: 1

what if I'm killed because of the beating? is it your problem then?

--
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
Re:I'm glad I don't live in Italy (maybe) by Branc0 · 2002-07-10 05:03 · Score: 1

Unless you owe me money and don't pay me cause you're dead... i don't see it how it is my problem... i hope you don't spend my tax money for *your* funeral or something, then i would be pissed :P

--

rm -rf /home/leia
Re:I'm glad I don't live in Italy (maybe) by qubit64 · 2002-07-10 05:17 · Score: 1

well, you spend your tax money on the police now, and they have some sort of responsibility to prevent murder... right?

--
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
Re:I'm glad I don't live in Italy (maybe) by Treylis · 2002-07-10 06:03 · Score: 1

Actually, freakishly enough, the courts have ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect you from harm. How the hell this decision was made, I don't know, but I'd call it a good argument for the Second Amendment meaning the right for you to personally defend yourself. ;-)

The case in question, where this decision came up, involved a triple rape, among other crimes, where the police basically just sat there and the women later tried to countersue.

PORCAMADONNA! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:02 · Score: 0

PORCODIO!!!

Re:PORCAMADONNA! by Maggot75 · 2002-07-09 23:04 · Score: 1

Way to go shithead. Now the pope will send people around and shut down Slashdot.

A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-09 23:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The Catholic religion should not be confused with Christianity. Here is a quick 3 point ideology of truth: 1: It doesn't seek to refute lies, only to shine amongst them 2: It doesn't seek to censor those with a different opinion, only to provide the fact 3: It is very often twisted into a lie be removing a vital detail. Look at all the religions of the world, and you will see these three points present. Many countries have an imposed state of religion, if you are born that religion, then you are expected and forced to live by it, serving those who seek to profit from you. Christianity is forbidden here, and many Christians are persecuted by Muslims (more info on www.cbn.com) Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and many others, are forbidden to read the Christian bible, especially the Gospel. Many religions take the bible, the ideas of Jesus, and twist them, Krishnas and Jehovas witnesses for example. They will give you the same story right up until the Gospel. You might wonder why people would go to this length. Clearly some organised religion profits many people in power. Others are plainly, simply the work of satan. I would call upon /. reader worried about the ever increasing worries over privacy to read Revelation ch 13 http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=r ev+13&language=english especially verses 11-18 http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=r ev+13%3A11-18&language=english

Re:A thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:12 · Score: 0

HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

What a moron.
Re:A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-09 23:16 · Score: 1

What a moron.
Re:A thought... by packeteer · 2002-07-09 23:29 · Score: 1

i see this is your first topic youve posted to one slashdot... maybe your new... let me fill you in on some things...

"I would call upon /. reader worried about the ever increasing worries over privacy to "

sorry but it aint going to happen... we prefer to sling our insults and take out our anger on slashdot with doing much else... as anyone else who has tried to start some type of movement on slashdot knows... it wont happen... we all like to sit around and tlak about the news but not do much about it... please dont call on them to do anything and you wont be dissapointed... this will probably be modded down...

it funny how once i get low enough to go below everyone's threshhold nobody can read me... on a censorship topic.. oh well bing it on cause i know /.ers love their modding down as much as they do hot grits...

--
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Re:A thought... by schon · 2002-07-10 01:01 · Score: 2

Many religions take the bible, the ideas of Jesus, and twist them, Krishnas and Jehovas witnesses for example

Don't forget the Catholics... they're just as bad as JW and Krishnas, and there are more of them!

Seriously, if you believe any major (or even minor) religion hasn't taken liberties with religious texts, then you're naieve in the extreme. If you believe that Catholics are 'above' the other religions in this regard, try doing some (non-Church-supported) reading about the Council of Nicea (you know, the guys who edited the bible and the 'ideas of Jesus' that get accepted as doctrine today)

Of course, I probably just fed a troll..
Re:A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-10 01:16 · Score: 1

Don't forget the Catholics... they're just as bad as JW and Krishnas, and there are more of them!
I agree with you whole heartedly, in fact, they were the main focus of my accusation, and I thank you for clarifying it!
Re:A thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:26 · Score: 0

Actually, seems like he was trying to clarify things. Perhaps a little overzealous, but who on Slashdot isn't?
Re:A thought... by Erwos · 2002-07-10 01:30 · Score: 2

"... and many Christians are persecuted by ... Jews ..."

I think someone has his facts slightly reversed.

-Erwos

--
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Re:A thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:45 · Score: 0

NO, the guys a complete idiot. Anybody reading that bullshit and beLIEving it, is a complete moron. It's bad enough that I watch my parents hand over 10% of their income to the first Multi-National corporation that is the church. But then to have someone coming to /. to push those views? just sad
Re:A thought... by hcdejong · 2002-07-10 01:46 · Score: 1

I think someone has his facts slightly reversed.
No, he forgot to include a period. It should read:
"Christianity is forbidden here, and many Christians are persecuted by Muslims (more info on www.cbn.com).
Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and many others, are forbidden to read the Christian bible, especially the Gospel."
An entirely correct statement, unfortunately.
Re:A thought... by HarvDog · 2002-07-10 01:46 · Score: 1

(I apologize in advance if this sounds anti-Catholic, but history doesn't lie)

As a matter of fact, the Catholic church has actively persecuted more Christians (and others) than any other religion. I found these on google:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/W/Waldense.asp
http://www.moriel.org/catholicism/christian_perse c ution.htm
http://www.baptistfire.com/articles/oth er/mexico.s html

And, of course, no study of religious persecution woule be complete without a quick look at Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Check out ISBN #0800786645 at your favorite bookstore.

--
I don't care what the question is, but the answer is FileMaker. --HarvDog
Re:A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-10 01:47 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I agree with your sentiment regarding /. readers =)
I am not new, I usually do not feel that I can compete with the normal torrent of mis-information contained in the comments, and I don't have much time to check so I rarely have time to comment after reading up.
This is mainly a concern when reading science based articles, because everyone gets out their boffin hat and starts spewing their theories on how they can knock up a quick cold fusion engine in 10 minutes if they had the time.
Back to the topic - the link it just to highlight now that the current chip implants being used on prisoners in america, which were recently passed by the FDA, currently only contain a unique ID number, but they wish to extends this.
I am not suprised that Italy is a forerunner of the new national ids, and biometic ids will soon turn full face and we will actually become the id, the mark of the beast, be it a barcode (see google "barcode 666") or some other device, to which I raise the concern about how easily consumers give in to such schemes as passport - when the 'mark' comes, many people will just see it as a cool new development, and will be blinded to the reality.
Re:A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-10 01:51 · Score: 1

Many thanks, and pardon my grammar! This is indeed what I had intended.
Re:A thought... by macdaddy357 · 2002-07-10 01:59 · Score: 1

Oh, so American Protestantism is the original and real 2000 year old Christianity and the Catholic Church is a recently invented knock-off? How about the Eastern Orthodox churches? Never even heard of them, have you? Here are some words to live by. If you take up serpents, they'll bite you! If you drink poison, It will kill you. Laying hands on people instead of taking them to a doctor won't heal them, and Jibber-jabbering is NOT speaking in new tongues.

--
How ya like dat?
Re:A thought... by Petrus · 2002-07-10 02:51 · Score: 1

Just to put it in historical perspective, that
council of Nicea was in 4th century and the 'Guys who edited the texts' were St. Jerome and his 20 monks. That was their lifetime job.

Petrus

Finally, someone has the guts to stop blasphemous offences in today's politically correct world. Thanks God.
Re:A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-10 02:53 · Score: 1

What Church do they give money to? I am not pushing my views, I am voicing my beliefs yes, but didn't you just do the same (albeit opinion)? The only difference is that I tried to construct mine to a degree of accuracy and completeness, and didn't misinterpret the preceding posts.
If your parents are giving away money to a false church then I share your sympathy, if they are donating money to the Christian faith, then this money could simply be a means to donate to a charity, to do good, or to help the church. They are by no means under any commitment to donate worldly value to the church, they might feel it is their duty to an extent.
But I would ask your parents if they are born again Christians, and please follow up your insightful commentary with the results. If someone just gives money to a church for comfort, but doesn't bare their soul before God, then I would tell them to save their money and buy all the worldy goods now.
First I would ask you to reason with yourself, because you will find yourself more accomodating to rational though on your own terms. Simply call out to God, ask him for some truth, read the Bible, I suggest some of the Gospel (Matthew Mark Luke and John) certainly understand the importance of John 3:16.
I hope you can change your own mind about this. I certainly wouldn't have a use for 10% of your parents income, anymore than I would need all the power in the world. This world is fleeting, remember that. Have you even asked yourself what you believe happens when you die? Not what you think, but what you believe.
Re:A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-10 03:00 · Score: 1

Petrus,
I see your perspective, political correctness can be a percieved barrier to Christian development.
I however would place less importance on stopping blasphemy, in the same way that 'stopping sin' would be tackled.
We should not judge these people. They are sinners, like us, they sin through blasphemy. However, Blasphemy also includes false prophecy, this is something we should all maintain vigilence upon.
Don't forget, Most religions by that nature are blesphemous, but we should not try to judge and deny these religions, but spread the truth, to those who will listen.
But again, I understand how many people find it difficult to be able to talk openly about their Christian faith, and we know it will become more difficult in coming times.
May God bless you.
Re:A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-10 03:23 · Score: 0

Oh, so American Protestantism is the original and real 2000 year old Christianity and the Catholic Church is a recently invented knock-off

Where did you think you read that?
Laying hands on people instead of taking them to a doctor won't heal them

Only through the power of God can miracles happen. The faith of his servants can be a recepticle for his power. No Christian has ever performed a miracle or healing, they have however shows faith and been anointed with the power of the holy spirit who works through them.
The Catholic church is an agent of satan. It looks religious, is talks about God, is has Angels and pretty gold paintings. Unfortunately they do not seem to like the idea of Jesus dying for their sins, and repentence is by crawling over broken glass or shouting out the hail marys, whilst confessing to the priest.
Also, nothing else is Christianity except Christianity, there may be names for Christian churches, movements and groups, but there is only one Christianity.
Baptist, Evangelical, Orthodox, whatever the flag, there are still people going to those Churches who aren't saved.
There is only one true Christian faith, and it is the Christian faith.
Please realise, citing your frustration over organised religion is doing what Christians all over the world do.
Catholics are certainly not Christians be default, someone brought up as a 'Catholic' may indeed be saved through their own search for God.
Speaking in tongues does happen, when the Holy Spirit blesses someone.
Evil will actively seek out and destroy the Christian faith, but false prophecies and institutions such as the Catholic church are fuelled by evil, and most of their success is due to the work of the devil, giving them strength.
Re:A thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 04:37 · Score: 0

Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste. My name's JGoo.
Re:A thought... by macdaddy357 · 2002-07-10 05:01 · Score: 1

How can you stand to be on slashdot? The mods here reward and punish using Karma, a Hindu concept. Didn't Jesus tell you when you heard his voice in your head that Hindism is Satanic?

--
How ya like dat?
Re:A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-10 05:14 · Score: 0

I would say it is more accurate to state that people have been killing people in the name of anything and everything for centuries. This obviously doesn't exclude Christianity. Taking Christianity as a whole, why should it want to kill non Christians? Of course the cause of Christianity has been twisted and used for wrong - that is common in any cause, and especially in Christianity, where I have already said that forces are at work to dis-credit the Gospel, and fabricate lies to protect their own interests. So in one sense, you could say that the first part of your post is very real to Christians, we know the word is being twisted. The second part however, I do not understand. Please specifically quote a lie I spouted to you.
Re:A thought... by macdaddy357 · 2002-07-10 05:15 · Score: 1

For 2000 years, under Christian rule, Jews have been forced into ghettos, subjugated, ridiculed, libeled, hated, and killed by the millions on pogroms and the holocaust. Jews today represent less than one third of one percent of the world's population. That is all that remain. Yet in this crackpot's clouded mind, they opress his people? How is that? By not bowing and worshiping the very idol in whose name all of these atrocities were comitted? If refusing to convert from one faith to another is opression, then a cruasde to kill all the infidels would be a good thing. He ought to start with all the "fake christians" who aren't in his born-again cult. People high on the opium of the masses are worse than people high on crack, and LSD put together.

--
How ya like dat?
Re:A thought... by JGoo · 2002-07-10 05:18 · Score: 0

Karma is just some trite jargon. A bit of a troll don't you think? I do not see how this post has any value, perhaps some humour karma is coming your way?
Re:A thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:50 · Score: 0

My karma ran over your dogma.
Re:A thought... by junkgrep · 2002-07-10 10:21 · Score: 2

The problem with this sort of declaration is that it falls prey to the True Scotsman fallacy. sure, you think the Catholic Church is an agent of Satan: but that's only the case if we assume beforehand that you've got it right, and they're mistaken. So criticisms of this sort simply beg the question of what interpretation IS right to begin with.

I'd also note that the modern Catholic Church is far more tolerant with regards to religious ideas than you are. Does this demonstrate that they are closer to what you believe to be the foundations of Christianity than you?
Re:A thought... by C0LDFusion · 2002-07-10 11:02 · Score: 1

All I have to say is that Christianity is the largest and most successful cult of all history. It is a cult because of the following reasons:

1) Its centered around the teachings of a single, charismatic leader
2) It demands total obediance from you.
3) It enforces those demands through thorough scare tactics. ("If you don't act like a real Christian, you'll go to hell!")
4) It, as an organization, demands more people join. (When I asked a pastor what the most important thing a pastor could do is, he replied "Witness". What is witnessing? It's the soft way to describe the mandate the church has to "grow it's flock" by kindness, coercion, or threats...like being your friend and slowly inserting it into conversations, bombing abortion clinics, or saying that "You could die tomorrow, join Christianity or feel the harsh eternal wrath of my God who happens to love you!")

The only reason Christianity isn't popularly called a cult is that it is the largest cult ever, and so many people in "high places" are also members. (I bet if there was a Branch Dividian Senator, Waco would've never happened). You will never see a Congressional debate on almost any bill where someone doesn't bring up God in some way or form.

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:A thought... by seyton · 2002-07-10 13:13 · Score: 1

I'm curious C0LDFusion, just what DO you believe in then?

Surely you aren't a foolish Atheist
Re:A thought... by C0LDFusion · 2002-07-10 14:33 · Score: 1

I'm actually a Correllian Wiccan.

--
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
Re:A thought... by varith · 2002-07-22 07:59 · Score: 1

The problem with all your posts on this thread is that you are shining a certain light on religion *until* you reach yours at which point you snap the light off and and say "...but not mine!". One quick case in point, televangelists. Many of them are born agains who live large off contributions from misguided viewers.
Re:A thought... by newestbob · 2002-07-22 17:25 · Score: 0

You're all wrong!
The TRUE WORD OF G-D is in the TORAH
The Messiah has not come to redeem the world. That should be OBVIOUS to you.

In defense by sprzepiora · 2002-07-09 23:04 · Score: 1

The Vatican newspaper has every right to complain, it was up to the Italian police to decide what to do. If it was against the law then hurray for justice. If not then thats another story.

--
Stupid things kids do.

Re:In defense by The+Creator · 2002-07-10 02:58 · Score: 1

If it was against the law then hurray for justice.

It was also against the law for jews to live in nazi germany.(* Hurray for justice!

*)Not relly, but you get the idea.

--

FRA: STFU GTFO

Heck... by gusnz · 2002-07-09 23:04 · Score: 3, Funny

I hope none of these Roman Prosecutors ever try browsing Slashdot at -1... going by the posts so far on this article we'd be censored in no time :).

--

Re:Heck... by dtosti · 2002-07-09 23:33 · Score: 1

ah ah :)

Of course, they cannot censor sites located outside of Italy.. :)

Amazing by heikkile · 2002-07-09 23:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

Vatican authorities complain to Italian police. The act is reported in an Australian paper, and referred to in a U.S. site (./). I read about it in Denmark, after the story has already gone once around the whole world.

Seriously, this really shows how the net is international indeed, and local authorities will have to adjust a lot. Wonder how the world will look like in 20 years? 50? 100?

--

In Murphy We Turst

Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:40 · Score: 0

I didn't know dotslash had any content yet, are you sure you saw it posted there?
Re:Amazing by DrSkwid · 2002-07-10 00:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Wonder how the world will look like in 20 years? 50? 100?

one big shopping mall

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Amazing by joyoflinux · 2002-07-10 01:05 · Score: 1

But the world won't be here in 50 years :-(
Re:Amazing by 6odm · 2002-07-10 01:26 · Score: 1

Users should be able to moderate every web page they are reading, then this kind of blasphemious web sites would be easy to moderate down, without police involvement. Hope that some day there is at least one page that allow moderating. Oh /. allows it allready, well, maybe after 50 years p% (where 0 < p < 100) of webpages allow moderating by users.
Re:Amazing by alienmole · 2002-07-10 04:56 · Score: 2

Wonder how the world will look like in 20 years? 50? 100?
one big shopping mall
...right next door to one big jail.
Re:Amazing by rhaig · 2002-07-10 05:03 · Score: 2

John Anderton! You need a Guinness!

--
"We are not tolerant people. We prefer drastically effective solutions"
Re:Amazing by pcmills · 2002-07-10 05:37 · Score: 2

With one Big Freakin outhouse out back.

--
Ask Slashdot - google for stupid people.
Re:Amazing by FluffyBob · 2002-07-10 14:07 · Score: 1

Dont forget the parking lot.
Re:Amazing by Snover · 2002-07-10 19:40 · Score: 1

one big PARKING LOT. (Y'know, for all those SUVs.)

--

[insert witty comment here]
Re:Amazing by Rogerborg · 2002-07-10 20:31 · Score: 2
- Wonder how the world will look like in 20 years? 50? 100?
A parched post-apocalyptic wasteland, where the only things not in short supply are ammo, cosmetics, and very revealing clothes made primarily out of leather and bits of tyres, of course.
--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Amazing by Hard_Code · 2002-07-22 07:50 · Score: 2

No, not "funny". Slashdot needs a "sad" moderation.

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 12:08 · Score: 0

well, it will mostly be under water, but people will continue to vote Republican - this is why we are doomed!

Here's one of the sites (I guess) by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:06 · Score: 0

http://www.porcamadonna.com/

And they didn't delete the whole site by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

The main page

If anyone ever sued me for Blasphemy by ThatbookwritingWheel · 2002-07-09 23:08 · Score: 1

...they'd have to proove first that god exists. That should keep the courts busy for a while.

--
We are all packets in the Internet of life!

Re:If anyone ever sued me for Blasphemy by h4mmer5tein · 2002-07-09 23:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually they wouldnt. They'd just prosecute you under whatever blasphemy laws applied. The existance of god is moot in this instance. It was a legal issue not a religeous one.
However the fact that the Vatican is seemingly able to lean on the Italian police sufficiently to get them to take such drastic action tells us something about the power of religeon in an otherwise secular society.
Re:If anyone ever sued me for Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:31 · Score: 0

such drastic action tells us something about the power of religeon in an otherwise secular society.
I would describe this case as excessive political power wielded by the largest international child-molestation ring still operating.
Re:If anyone ever sued me for Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-11 02:45 · Score: 0

Vatican is a very thin state. It even does not have it's own currency. Their only police is the swiss guard, not that bad for a Rio carnival.

Re:well... i'm american... by rjw57 · 2002-07-09 23:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

FUCK AMERICA...

Seriously... how long would you last wearing a 'FUCK AMERICA - UBL FOR PRESIDENT' T-shirt in the US? Its the same with 'blasphemous' T-shirts in the Vatican -- except the Vatican doens't kill people who try that anymore.

--
Rich

Silver Lining by HappyPhunBall · 2002-07-09 23:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The good news is that it is still acceptable to bugger little boys! Especially alter boys...mmmmmm alter boys.
Seriously, the Catholic Church is in no position to impose their morals on anyone at this point.

Mod parent up +1 funny by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:17 · Score: 0

Come on guys...take it for what it is. It's relatively on-topic and it's funny. This is why slashdot is slashdot. Don't be gay and mod it away to oblivion.
Whoever modded it as a troll needs better things to do with their time...

Re:well... i'm american... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:21 · Score: 0

dude snapped
don't go postal on us, buddy!

Not there yet... by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · 2002-07-09 23:25 · Score: 1

Yet again we see how the world is still backwards thinking. They can't even provide one spec of evidence that god exists, and yet they fight this hard to censor any negative comments about their imaginary friend.

Yeah mod me down all the regligious folks. It's not like the /. mod system was ever fair, especially in the hands of pious (sp?) individuals.

--

eTrade SUCKS

Re:Not there yet... by valdez70 · 2002-07-09 23:38 · Score: 1

Stop for a moment. If you don't like something is your right to say that. On the other hand, is not your right to insult others' beliefs.

So the solution is: be constructive, not offensive.
Re:Not there yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 00:10 · Score: 0

Hey idiot... quit being a religious bigot first.

as soon as you quit being an asshole I'll quit being an asshole..

you are in control, and unfortunately your religion doesnt teach peace,tolerance or anything noble as is proven by YOUR actions.

so until you can show me different you are no better than who you bitch about.
Re:Not there yet... by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · 2002-07-10 00:45 · Score: 1

And it's even worse to censor others into submission.

--

eTrade SUCKS
Re:Not there yet... by Stonehand · 2002-07-10 04:03 · Score: 1

Even when beliefs make numerous completely unverifiable claims about reality, and then demand that people arrange their behavior accordingly?

If, today, some delusional chap went around claiming that he was the son of a Creator and that everybody should obey his dictates, and couldn't provide any evidence thereof, we shouldn't mock him?

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:Not there yet... by An+Onerous+Coward · 2002-07-10 06:11 · Score: 1

"If you don't like something is your right to say that. On the other hand, is not your right to insult others' beliefs."
Au contraire. I have every right to insult the beliefs of whomever I see fit. That's part and parcel of free speech. I don't have the right to force others to listen to it, nor do I have a right to perform the insulting in such a manner that it would incite a reasonable person to violence. Finally, nobody is under any obligation to give my insults any weight, or accord them any other sort of respect.

It is completely asinine to think that every person's beliefs, regardless of merit, should be shielded from public criticism. It is both possible and common for two people to respect each other, even while openly acknowledging that they each think the other's beliefs are a load of crap.

So please, for Darwin's sake, stop whining about having too much freedom.

--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Re:Not there yet... by kiwimate · 2002-07-10 09:08 · Score: 2

It is both possible and common for two people to respect each other, even while openly acknowledging that they each think the other's beliefs are a load of crap...I have every right to insult the beliefs of whomever I see fit

Do you see the contradiction inherent here? No, evidently not.

"Respecting each other" is at least partly about recognising a person's beliefs are important to that individual, and hence deliberately avoiding judgemental and hatred-laden phrases such as "your beliefs are a load of crap".

I am sick and tired of self-righteous bigots like you proclaiming their imagined "rights" to allow them to be as rude, crude, and offensive as possible and then hypocritically pouring scorn on anyone whose actions you despise or disdain. You demand respect and blind obedience to your belief system, and yet refuse to extend the same courtesy to those from whom you demand this supplication.

Ironically enough, a verse in the Bible instructs readers to remove the plank from their own eye before attempting to remove the speck from their brother's eye. Think about it.

Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:25 · Score: 0

Give me a break. In what way is the Vatican actually harmed by these sites? "Waaaaah....Waaaaah....they said not nice woooords about us! Waaaaaah!" Blasphemous? Well, only if you belong to that faith I suppose, and even then that does not give them the right have the sites taken down. Ridiculous.

In a word: "NO" by Hektor_Troy · 2002-07-09 23:29 · Score: 4, Informative

Make that a "HELL NO!"

The danish constitution has a very interesting paragraph:

" 77
Enhver er berettiget til på tryk, i skrift og tale at offentliggøre sine tanker, dog under ansvar for domstolene. Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingen sinde på ny indføres. "

And in English:
" 77
Anyone is at liberty to publish his thought, be it printed, in writing or speech, but are accountable to a court of law. Censureship and other preventative meassures can never again be introduced."

Or something to that effect.

The Danish police have no right to shut down any web-sites - to do so you need a court order (freedom of speech with personal responsibility). This includes hate-speech, blasphemy, propaganda and otherwise.

You are obviously not a lawyer, and you had better try to back up your wild claims with relevant quotes next time around.

--
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.

Re:In a word: "NO" by Majin+Bubu · 2002-07-09 23:41 · Score: 1

And the police here in Italy acted after a court order. What is the difference?

--
Ander
@=
Re:In a word: "NO" by Pig+Hogger · 2002-07-10 00:51 · Score: 3, Funny

The Danish police have no right to shut down any web-sites
So this means that my website about muffins is safe???
Re:In a word: "NO" by Hektor_Troy · 2002-07-10 01:01 · Score: 2

None, but that's not the point. The point is, that the original poster claimed, that blasphemy is illegal in Denmark, which in all likelyhood is 100% wrong.

Should a Danish court issue a court order against a site like the one in question, they can appeal that decision to a higher court, and probably stay the closure of the site. But, given the usual "so?" attitude of Danish courts, they would probably throw the request for a court order out so fast, it'd break the sound barrier.

--
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.

Amusing. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:29 · Score: 0

The local paper did a bit about removing the part about imaginary friends from the pledge a few weeks back.

All the catholics were whining about how they're being imposed upon by a single person. *chuckle*

Funny, it looks like a very small group of people (Or even one person, can't seem to get through to the article) are being imposed upon by a large group of catholics.

I'd like to show my support for upstanding Italians everywhere, by issuing the following heretical claim:

I am God, and thus I spake, and spake I did thus, and thou shalt sacrifice thine Cola upon mine altar. Thou shalt drink but the sacred bean of coffee, and thou shalt have no other drink but it, aside from the revered and blessed alcohol.

More info by plaa · 2002-07-09 23:30 · Score: 2

Found searching Google:

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1133397

More info, according to it they have been mixing pornography with religion.

"They then went on to show a nun in suggestive clothes [and] other things in poor taste."

--

I doubt, therefore I may be.

Re:More info by plaa · 2002-07-09 23:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1133397

Even more interesting quote: (I didn't notice it at first.)

The officers were involved in an international operation to catch the website operators because, although they were created in Italy, the internet service providers were based in Washington DC and California.

--

I doubt, therefore I may be.

Way to go. by z_gringo · 2002-07-09 23:30 · Score: 1

I tried both links, and couldn't read the article. Someone please post it, I'd love to read it. I didn't realize the italians were so sensitive about this stuff.

I'm going out on a limb here, and NOT posting anonymously, so moderators, please be kind.

I myself have often wanted to start a website poking a bit of fun at some of those things, but never had the balls to go through with it. One would be When is that pope guy going to die?!?! There should be some pool,and the one(s) who pick the closest date get the money.. (deadpope.com or something).. That would be great. As long as it's not deadpope.it, because they might shut it down.

And, What's with the whole virgin having a baby thing? Seriously!! I mean somebody fucked her! right? Or is it just me who finds that hard to believe?

The main thing I want to know is what are those three sites that were shut down? Someone please post the links!!

--
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.

Re:Way to go. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:47 · Score: 0

deadpope.com would be a form of gambling. But, you could always have it hosted at Sealand. :)

If you do start it up, put me down for $20. I'm guessing November 16th, 2002. C'mon, big money, big money.
Re:Way to go. by vidarh · 2002-07-10 05:04 · Score: 2

Well, for someone that believe in a god believing in a virgin giving birth shouldn't exactly be that much of a stretch...
Re:Way to go. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 10:54 · Score: 0

Vigins have given birth... it's called a "spash conception" I have a friend with a 1.5 yr. old daughter from a splash conception. It's rare, but some of those tadpoles can really swim. AFAIK, my frined is still technically a virgin. Sure, she could have lied, but does society really care about your virginity if you have a baby?

Re:well... i'm american... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:31 · Score: 0

Freedom of speech? No such thing. Imagine my popularity in NYC wearing my t-shirt that says - "NYFD are bad at their job".

The Tiger Lillies said it best... by JimPooley · 2002-07-09 23:34 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm crucifying Jesus, banging in the nails,
And I am so happy, because old Jesus failed.
I'm crucifying Jesus, nail him to the cross,
The poor old bastard bleeds to death and I don't give a toss.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm crucifying Jesus, in my piss he bathes.
I think I am a pervert, I think I am depraved
I'm crucifying Jesus, beat him to a pulp,
I stick my organ in his mouth and on it he must gulp.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

You see that crown of thorns upon his head?
Well that was my idea.
I think I might be going to hell,
Oh dear!

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

I'm bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang,
banging in the nails.

----
All Text By Martyn Jacques
Copyright Misery Guts Music
http://www.tigerlillies.com

--

"Information wants to be paid"

Re:The Tiger Lillies said it best... by jafiwam · 2002-07-10 02:29 · Score: 1

That guy needs a bigger hammer. That's a lot of "bang"s just to pound four spikes through some flesh.
Re:The Tiger Lillies said it best... by osgeek · 2002-07-10 03:35 · Score: 2

I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty sure that you're going to hell for quoting that. Good luck in the fires of perdition.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:The Tiger Lillies said it best... by linzeal · 2002-07-22 11:13 · Score: 1

Maybe he is enjoying his work. I know I would.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty

Offensive speech by pubjames · 2002-07-09 23:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

In this case, I believe these sites were deliberately trying to cause offense to Catholics. I don't have any problem with the Italians having laws against speech that deliberately incites hated or deliberately tries to offend. It's a very different situation to say, having laws against speech that criticises the Catholic Church or supports other religions.

There have to be limits, and I think it is sensible to have laws against deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke. To those that say it is bad to have this type of law, I say, where do you draw the line? Is it ok for me to put a billboard next to a hospital that says "Has someone you loved just died of cancer? Ha ha ha! That's funny!" Is that ok?

Re:Offensive speech by pubjames · 2002-07-09 23:50 · Score: 2

So I guess now Catholic websites are illegal as they are clearly meant to offend people who don't believe in such things. Get a fucking clue...anything can be agrued to be offensive to anyone. You probably only complain when it affects you though. Sensible indeed...sensible to the senseless.

Just for the record, I am not Catholic. In fact I don't believe in God. Your suggestion that "anything can be argued to be offensive to anyone" is plainly not true and is not a rational argument.
Re:Offensive speech by Silverhammer · 2002-07-09 23:59 · Score: 3, Funny

Your suggestion that "anything can be argued to be offensive to anyone" is plainly not true

You, sir, apparently have not yet encountered the American tort system...
Re:Offensive speech by 2g3-598hX · 2002-07-10 00:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

1. website != billboard.

2. offensive to you == interesting to me

I find a lot of Catholic belief particularly offensive, such as their medieval attitudes towards science, their anti-contraceptive stance and their denial of female reproductive rights. But I wouldn't ever want to censor them. Voltaire always sez it best...

"I might not agree with what you say, but I'll die defending your right to say it."
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 00:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

" don't have any problem with the Italians having laws against speech that deliberately incites hated or deliberately tries to offend."

Why? Whats wrong with offending people? Who gives a fuck?

"There have to be limits"

You offer no evidence to justify this statement.

Much art is created with the sole intention of provoking a response. Is that bad? I think Catholicism is a crock of shite. That goes for all religions. If i`d said this in Italy, should I be punished? Why? How would that use of money (and possibly prison time) be worthwhile?

If you want to believe that fucking retarded shite, then go for it, but leave me the fuck alone, ok?
Re:Offensive speech by pubjames · 2002-07-10 00:54 · Score: 0

I find a lot of Catholic belief particularly offensive, such as their medieval attitudes towards science, their anti-contraceptive stance and their denial of female reproductive rights. But I wouldn't ever want to censor them.

No, of course not! But none of those things are examples of deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke. They are religious beliefs.

Now, if the Catholic Church decided to start sending letters to women who have had abortions that said "You are a murdering whore" with pictures of dead feotuses in - in that case I think a civilized society should have a law against that type of behaviour. But of course I am forgetting - the USA is different. Anti-abortionists in the USA probably send that type of letter and are protected against any legal action by your noble constitution.

Just in case someone still doesn't understand my point and responds to this saying "yes, but to me abortion is more offensive than getting a letter in the post" or something like that, let me give another example. If a pro-abortionist sent out letters to anti-abortionists saying, for instance, "Ha ha look at this! We did it again!" with a picture of an aborted feotus, then that too is deliberately offensive and upsetting speech.
Re:Offensive speech by Steve+B · 2002-07-10 01:17 · Score: 2

No, of course not! But none of those things are examples of deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke. They are religious beliefs.
Your attempt to distinguish between the two is intellectually incoherent. For instance, it is a common religious belief that anyone outside the fold of one's own sect is en route to the eternal bonfires. Every so often, somebody puts up a billboard stating this more or less directly. Now, tell the class whether "You [heretics|papists|infidels|whatever] are going to Hell!" is "a religious belief" or "deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke".

--
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Re:Offensive speech by 2g3-598hX · 2002-07-10 01:20 · Score: 1

I hate to repeat myself...but a website is very different from a billboard. No one is forcing people to look at the web site. And no one is forcing people to read the letters.

Billboards are different. I agree that special laws should apply to large fixed structures which people have no choice but to look at. The same should go for air writing, blimps and any large signage.

But they are all special cases, and irrelevant to this particular scenario (web sites). The rest of the time people have a choice at what they read/view, and so if they are offended by something it is their own fault, nobody forced them to look at it. They chose to of their own volition.
Re:Offensive speech by pubjames · 2002-07-10 01:24 · Score: 2

Now, tell the class whether "You [heretics|papists|infidels|whatever] are going to Hell!" is "a religious belief" or "deliberately offensive speech that is just intended to upset and provoke".

The whole basis of law is definitions - defining where the line is drawn. Sometimes that's easy ("you must be over 18") sometimes it's difficult ("make reasonable efforts", "due care and attention") but that's what the law does, it draws lines.
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:51 · Score: 0

It is plainly not true? I beg to differ; anything can be argued to be offensive to anyone, in the sense that for every instance of a belief or idea, there is somewhere someone who finds it offensive. Some people's ideals are polar opposites, and these beliefs can't exist amidst there opposition by definition. Others are on different points of a line, (To simplify the visualisation. Yes, it is over-simplified in this manner and is rather two-dimensional, but saying that speech that somehow antagonizes others should never be permitted is equally so.) pushing aginst the oposite in a mixture of ideals.

Example:
Some people are disgusted by the consumption of meat, so much so that they would like very little more then everyone else in the world to not consume meat as well, some to the point that they must rant and rave about how disgusting and barbaric a practice it is.

Then you obviously have religions and sects of religions (Some who even squabble and comdemn the rest to a fiery abyss...talk about division), racial and sexual divisions, and almost every other frigging thing in existance can be offensive to some people somewhere in the right circumstance.

Mac vs. PC anyone? Open Source vs. Proprietary...
Monogamy vs. Polygamy
Paganism vs. Monothesism...some people can't stand the fact that other people in this world have the choice to believe what they want!
Even the most innocent debates can sometimes drive people to foaming, cursing madness.

Rich vs. poor, young vs. old, men vs. women, heterosexual vs. homosexual, spiritual belief vs. nonbelief, strength vs. weakness, brains vs. braun, there are endless divisions between all people, and when a battle is won, they later fall back to a previous position, eternally striving.

In all of these beliefs, there are arguments adament and weak, against another.

We have people who are fired for being too old, women making less money because they are women, and all of these other instances of arbitrary belief with no rational.

You mean to tell me that none of these things happen? Since when does rational thought have anything to do with being offended? We are talking about feelings here...

So when I hear someone saying that clearly this can't be allowed I figure that this person is forgetting a thing or two by over-simplifying the issue at hand.
Re:Offensive speech by RandomPeon · 2002-07-10 01:55 · Score: 2

Anti-abortionists in the USA probably send that type of letter and are protected against any legal action by your noble constitution.

I hate to break it to you, but sending such letters is probably not constitutionally protected. They're most likely libelous - you can be sued for maliciously accusing a specific individual of a crime they did not commit. Thus, while one can say "abortion is murder", one cannot say "she is a murderer" to a woman who had an abortion.

then that too is deliberately offensive and upsetting speech.

But so is telling a devout Christian that there is no god, or telling an atheist that he or she must repent or go to hell. It's arguably "deliberately
upsetting" when you explain post-1775 economics to libertarians. Take a look at Ann Coulter, who says things that I find very disturbing, but many people find quite compelling and eloquent.
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:16 · Score: 0

I bet the virgin mary masturbated every day.

There, I deliberately tried to cause offense to Catholics. Deal with it.

I intend to "upset and provoke" at every opportunity for the rest of my life. You'd better hurry up and get those laws passed that will allow you to jail or execute me.
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:38 · Score: 0

a website is very different from a billboard. No one is forcing people to look at the web site.

Most websites don't protect users from deliberately malicious linkage the way that slashdot does.
Re:Offensive speech by Alsee · 2002-07-10 02:41 · Score: 2

So you think you have some right to be protected from people and words that offend and upset you? I'll tell you what, dumb ideas like that offend and upset me. Therefore you and your post need to be censored.

Heay! CmdrTaco! I DEMAND you immediately delete the parent post! It is OFFENSIVE! Delete his account and ban his IP address! If he contines to post offensive messages anyway, have him ARRESTED!

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Offensive speech by Isao · 2002-07-10 03:19 · Score: 1

Only speech that isn't liked requires protection. Speech that everyone likes requires none.
The answer to undesirable speech is more speech.
Re:Offensive speech by HiThere · 2002-07-10 03:49 · Score: 2

If I get mail attributed to them, that I find offensive, ...

If missionaries show up on my doorstep and won't leave...

I find christian religions to be generally abhorrent. I was coerced into studying the Bible when I was a child, but I did study it. Their god loves recommending murder, torture, rape, etc. Yes, on formal occasions he also makes more restrained statements recommending tolerance, but when push comes to shove he's a viscious as they come. Kali isn't in the same league.

I do not favor censorship even of these unmentionables. But I sure do find them offensive. And rarely more so than when they are recommending that someone else, who usually has relatively sensible views, be censored. (But then I consider most other views to be more sensible.)

When an organization with political power uses that to silence opposition, then I consider that to be a grosser and uglier equivalent to shouting profanity and blasphemy in peoples ears. Actually, I consider it worse than that. If someone shouts in your ears, you can turn around and slug him. If someone keeps you from being able to hear opposing views, he is doing the equivalent, but hiding the fact so that you can't (and aren't inspired to) retaliate.

So I consider the catholic church to be a much worse offender than the web sites, this without even being moved to find out what the web sites said. And I consider the Italian government and the police to be confederates in the crime. (It may be legal, but it's still a crime. I don't give other people the power to determine what I consider to be evil, good, or criminal. Legal, I grant them, mainly because I don't have much choice.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Offensive speech by rossz · 2002-07-10 05:22 · Score: 2

You couldn't be more wrong. To some people, the simple statement "god does not exist" is highly offensive. Who decides? When you allow the government to censor, the government will do it to server its own purpose, regardless of the original intent. For ANY law, not just speech/press laws, always ask the questiong, "How can this be abused?", because it will be abused.

BTW, The Madonna was a crack whore.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Offensive speech by dtosti · 2002-07-10 05:24 · Score: 1

I find a lot of Catholic belief particularly offensive, such as their medieval attitudes towards science, their anti-contraceptive stance and their denial of female reproductive rights.

Consider this: when you were a child, your mother told you to do not this thing or another one, because that would be dangerous for yourself.

now, the Christian churches shouldn't be considered as a "political organizations", but as wise mothers who suggests the right way of life to their children.

Note the emphasis. I said "suggest" and not "impose". This is the thin red line that separate the best religions (Christian, Jewish and the oriental ones) from the worst ones (i.e.: Scientology, Islam). A religion that respects the freedom of choice of their followers is more powerful than one that claim that they will give them happiness by asking to plan their life...

Apart for this, I agree with Voltaire's motto. :)
Re:Offensive speech by AltaMannen · 2002-07-10 06:42 · Score: 1

Laws regarding Hate and slander are generally covering only such instances where people are attacked for their beliefs or doings, not what they actually believe in.

As a religious symbol, madonna the biblical figure, jesus and his fathers etc. are simply mythical creatures and there is really nothing upsetting about setting these in new environments, putting jesus in bondage is in effect no different from putting santa claus in a porn movie. It is just free speech and expired copyrights at work! IANAL but hey, they aren't all that great themselves.
Re:Offensive speech by Starcub · 2002-07-10 09:59 · Score: 1

I was coerced into studying the Bible when I was a child, but I did study it. Their god loves recommending murder, torture, rape, etc.

Evidently those who "coerced" you into studing the Bible never bothered teaching you about the 10 commandments, and never let you read the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Yes, on formal occasions he also makes more restrained statements recommending tolerance.

Tolerance of what? Tolerance of evil is not a Christian virtue. Christians are called to council against evil and lead by example. This for the greater benefit of all.

So I consider the catholic church to be a much worse offender than the web sites, this without even being moved to find out what the web sites said.

This attitude is what keeps you from understanding Christ and the Catholic Church. If you make no effort to understand why people believe as they do, not only will you continue in error, you will likely lead others into error as well. If you want to know what the Church teaches about God, participate. You are doing yourself injustice if you accept anybody else's opinion on the matter. If after learning from the Church, you still do not agree, at least you will have some ground to stand on when you criticize.
Re:Offensive speech by HiThere · 2002-07-10 11:03 · Score: 2

I did read the 10 commandments. I also read the rest of the chapter. For example, the section right before that where Moses has "the idolators" killed. I found it quite an enlightening justraposition.

Or consider the fate of the people peacefully living in Jerico. Or consider.... too many.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 11:17 · Score: 0

keep in mind that these people are deliberately choosing to accept the creed of deliberate offensive speech.
Re:Offensive speech by Starcub · 2002-07-10 11:23 · Score: 1

I find a lot of Catholic belief particularly offensive, such as their medieval attitudes towards science...

Don't understand what you are talking about here. The Church is well aware of the state of the art in technology, and they do not judge the validity of scientific claims.

...their anti-contraceptive stance...

This is true, but for good reason. Contraceptives are not entirely effective. Becoming pregnant affects persons for the rest of their lives. There is at least one sexually transmitted disease that contraceptives are entirely ineffective at preventing.

...and their denial of female reproductive rights.

I'm Catholic and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with this. Catholic couples are *encouraged* by the Church to have and raise children. This is the ultimate goal of a marriage relationship.
Re:Offensive speech by Starcub · 2002-07-10 12:16 · Score: 1

Well, all of this is Old Testament stuff. As Christians, we live under the New Testament covenant established by Christ. It seems to me that the new law is much simpler than the laws established before Christ.

While I'd agree that some of the actions God took seem rash, I don't think it is wise to pass judgment on actions God takes in general. I really don't know much about the peoples of Old Testament times, but it seems to me they were fairly simple and thus more suitable to following cut and dry rules. I think punishment was dealt to preserve a better future for those who did follow God's rules. Since God was the Creator, he had a unique ultra-complex understanding of what was good for the people and what was destructive. Thus obedience to God was very important; for our own sakes. I don't think God destroyed anybody without giving them a chance to repent. I also tend to think that all who died apart from God before Christ were given a chance to enter Heaven through Christ after his death.

From Christ we get clear council and the benefit of the Holy Spirit, which perhaps only a handful of people possessed in Old Testament times. The Holy Spirit councils primarily through the Church, but the basic laws remain the same since we are in fact still the same physical and spiritual creatures by nature, and live in the same world of God's creation.
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 15:00 · Score: 0

Which people are you referring to, and why should we keep this in mind?

Are you suggesting the xians are deliberately choosing their offensive 'going to hell' language? I fully agree. Are you suggesting that the website authors are choosing deliberately offensive language about a mythical heroine? I fully agree.

So what exactly is the point in keeping either one of these in mind?
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 15:08 · Score: 0

(I am not the poster this was in reply to...)

Christians are called to council against evil and lead by example.

Interesting... you'd think that in leading by example, many could learn to keep their fucking mouths shut. But no, part of their example has to involve forcing OTHERS to adhere to their example, as you see demonstrated in the article.

This attitude is what keeps you from understanding Christ and the Catholic Church. If you make no effort to understand why people believe as they do

I don't particularly want to understand the twisted logic that led to "I don't like that website, so noone else should see it!". Have the catholic leaders so little faith in their followers that they think a few pictures of nuns shagging crosses will derail them from the path of righteousness? What a crock. Follow your religion, enjoy your religion, improve your life... but don't force YOUR medieval superstitious bullshit on ME (and that goes for every value of ME).
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 15:14 · Score: 0

Reproductive RIGHTS, as in the right not to reproduce.

This is true, but for good reason. Contraceptives are not entirely effective. Becoming pregnant affects persons for the rest of their lives. There is at least one sexually transmitted disease that contraceptives are entirely ineffective at preventing.

What kind of good reason is this?
"Condoms don't work all the time, and only stop about 98% of sexually transmitted diseases, therefore the Catholic church cannot sanction them"???

That's not a good enough reason to demonize contraceptives, especially in areas of the world rife with STDs.
Re:Offensive speech by Peyna · 2002-07-10 15:26 · Score: 2

The idea of not use contraception isn't so much as a dislike of contraception but more of the idea that intercourse with a partner is for the purpose of reproduction and not getting off. Mohandus Gandhi believed it was wrong for him to sleep with his wife without the intent of having children, (although admitted to falling from this many times. I read a very interesting interview with Gandhi and Margaret Sanger that discussed his views on the subject.) I think the issue is more of whether it is okay to have sexual intercourse for its own purposes rather than reproduction. Female circumcision is along similar lines as this. Turns intercourse into a purely reproductive process.

--
What?
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 16:34 · Score: 0

Mohandus Gandhi?
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 18:41 · Score: 0

Don't question when God does evil. Ignore old bad stuff. How convenient.
Re:Offensive speech by superyooser · 2002-07-10 19:44 · Score: 1

Reproductive RIGHTS, as in the right not to reproduce.
You maintain your right not to reproduce by maintaining your responsibility to keep your pants up. It's an issue of self-control. To women: don't get drunk and go to wild parties where sexual predators are waiting to impregnate you at your most vulnerable moment. Sexual intercourse sets in motion the process of reproduction. (duh) You choose not to reproduce by choosing not to fornicate. When you choose to have sex, you are choosing to be a mother for the rest of your life -- to carry out the responsibilities, duties, and sacrifices of motherhood and possibly grandmotherhood. You may or may not conceive, but you are fully aware that the likelihood exists.
Condoms don't work all the time, and only stop about 98% of sexually transmitted diseases
98%? Where do you get that figure?
That's not a good enough reason to demonize contraceptives
I got your reason to demonize right here! It's a study done by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (PDF format). Scientific Evidence on Condom [ In ]Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention
The important facts are that there is no proof that condoms provide any protection from gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, chancroid, syphilis, genital herpes, or human papillomavirus. Here's a simple chart with important details. 10,000 physicians agree. Read more.
Condoms protect against HIV/AIDS only 85% of the time. If you knew that you had 15% chance of winning the lottery, wouldn't you enter every time? If you have 15% chance of dying, why do you play the game? It's funny how optimism is oblivious to statistics.
Re:Offensive speech by Vulture_ · 2002-07-10 21:43 · Score: 1

Is it ok for me to put a billboard next to a hospital that says "Has someone you loved just died of cancer? Ha ha ha! That's funny!"
Sure, as long as it's okay for me to knock it down, set fire to it, and throw an effigy of you into the blaze.

--
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
Re:Offensive speech by Vulture_ · 2002-07-10 21:56 · Score: 1

If I get mail attributed to them, that I find offensive, ...
...I collect them until I have enough to build a huge bonfire with, hang an effigy of the Pope (or some other highly contemptible political figure) on a wooden pole, and then set the pile ablaze.
If missionaries show up on my doorstep and won't leave...
...I get out any readily available firearms and tell them to get off my property before I force them off. Or call the police if that's a non-option.
but when push comes to shove he's a viscious as they come.
Correction. Christian fundamentalists are as vicious as they come. Remember that the Bible was not written by God.
If someone keeps you from being able to hear opposing views, he is doing the equivalent, but hiding the fact so that you can't (and aren't inspired to) retaliate.
And if you realize what he's doing and attempt to retaliate, he has you executed for national security reasons, because, of course, only filthy, evil terrorists like yourself could possibly want access to that kind of material.

--
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
Re:Offensive speech by Vulture_ · 2002-07-10 21:59 · Score: 1

Of course contraception isn't sinful. If God didn't intend for sex to be used for recreation, He wouldn't have made it so much fun!

--
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-11 01:31 · Score: 0

If sex wasn't fun, would as many people have been born, and society have advanced as much as it has? A lot of very important people to science and technology were born from sex for recreation instead of reproduction =]
Re:Offensive speech by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-11 09:10 · Score: 0

When you choose to have sex, you are choosing to be a mother for the rest of your life

This is your view, which in my experience is not even remotely the case. Perhaps you need to update your viewpoint to include the idea that it is possible to enjoy sex without reproducing. I do it every day, and I'm *gasp* still alive and not a parent!

98%? Where do you get that figure

Oh, Jesus Christ. Do you see the speech marks?
It's not stated as a statistic, it's mocking the point of view as it first appeared to me.

Condoms protect against HIV/AIDS only 85% of the time

Oh no! NOW I have to introduce you to the idea of responsibility WITHOUT involving childbirth. Reasonable human beings are capable of having sex safely. I DON'T HAVE SEX WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE STDS. It is, in fact, POSSIBLE for others to do the same.
Re:Offensive speech by Starcub · 2002-07-11 09:16 · Score: 1

Human Papillomavirus was the one I was thinking about. Saw it on TV a couple weeks ago. It was a real eye opener for me since I had always thought that they were effective against the spread of disease. Guess that shows why it's important to follow the Church as you can't always get good info from other sources. Thanks for the posting the links!
Re:Offensive speech by Starcub · 2002-07-11 15:20 · Score: 1

Well, for married couples the Church teaches that sex be oriented towards the purposes of procreation and forming unity. As I read it, this means that sex outside of procreation is permitted only if it is necessary for maintaining the health of the marriage; the emphasis being on refraining if you can. Even so, natural family planning methods without contraceptives are 98% effective; it's not asking much really. Besides, why make love using a condom? Plus there is something to be said for anticipation.

I'm pretty sure the Church would condemn female circumcision as an unnatural and unhealthy act.

Therefore, I believe these criticisms of the Church are invalid.
Re:Offensive speech by schon · 2002-07-15 10:23 · Score: 1

Female circumcision is along similar lines as this. Turns intercourse into a purely reproductive process.

I'm sorry, but WHAT!?!?!?!

Maybe it turns it into a purely reproductive process for the woman, but it's still pleasurable for the man.

Female circumcision is about nothing other than female subjugation.
Re:Offensive speech by Peyna · 2002-07-15 10:28 · Score: 2

If it isn't pleasurable for the woman she is going to be much less likely to submit to intercourse with her husband. Regardless of whether or not he wants it, he's probably not going to get it unless it's for making a baby or she wants to please him.

--
What?
Re:Offensive speech by fishbowl · 2002-07-22 09:07 · Score: 2

Voltaire always sez it best...

"I might not agree with what you say, but I'll die defending your right to say it."

But... Was Voltaire volunteering to defend your rights, or was he speaking in protest against a system that could conscript him to fight, forcing him to die in your defense?

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Offensive speech by Graspee_Leemoor · 2002-07-22 16:30 · Score: 1

"To some people, the simple statement "god does not exist" is highly offensive."

Yeah, it offends me on logical grounds. You should say "There is no God" rather than "God does not exist" which is a contradiction.

Think of it as "There is no plate of macaroni over there" vs. "That plate of macaroni over there does not exist".

graspee

Not only blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:39 · Score: 0

Theve five sites have been closed not only for blasphemy (which is still a offence here in Italy)(Damn, we have the Vatican... Anyone would like to buy it? ;-)), but for prOn, crackz and fraud...
So, this is not a matter of "freedom of speech": it's a matter of breaking the law...
A stupid law (AFAIR, it should be a relic of the fascist's period (1920-1940)), obviously, but a law anyway...

What next? by RebRachman · 2002-07-09 23:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Next thing you know they'll be shutting down sites which contain sexually-explicit stuff, like describing what the priests have been doing with the alterboys...

bah by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:42 · Score: 0

This is the kind of shit you expect in suadi arabia or pakistan but for a christian country to do this kind of censorship is disgusting.

Re:well... i'm american... by edrugtrader · 2002-07-09 23:43 · Score: 2

i would hope any american could wear a FUCK AMERICA tshirt every day of their lives and live free.

that is the entire point of america.

--
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E

Define Your Blashemy by LittleGuy · 2002-07-09 23:43 · Score: 2

Depending on whatever century you (still) live in, Blashemy could be here, here, or even here.

Fortunately, we live in a country which protects individuals from charges of blas... oh,
never mind.

--
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.

Re:Finally, some sensible policies by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-09 23:46 · Score: 0

Excellent troll sir. I look forward to your humorous work in the future.

Nobody has asked this yet? by Linux+Freak · 2002-07-09 23:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

I have been reading the past 50 some odd comments, and I find it odd that nobody has asked the question: "How the _HELL_ did Italian authorities get the jurisdiction to put up a block on a site located in the U.S.?"

The fact that the material was offensive, or even illegal _in Italy_ should be immaterial. The real issue is how this censorship could have even taken place, and anybody who runs a web site should have their cackles up over this issue.

Re:Nobody has asked this yet? by BCoates · 2002-07-10 00:07 · Score: 3, Informative

"How the _HELL_ did Italian authorities get the jurisdiction to put up a block on a site located in the U.S.?"

From the MSNBC article:
Police said they used the same computer from which the Web sites were uploaded to remove the offensive material and replace it with the crest of the special police unit involved.

They did not say whether they informed the Internet providers that hosted the sites. Nor did they name the providers.
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:Nobody has asked this yet? by Pig+Hogger · 2002-07-10 00:47 · Score: 2

I have been reading the past 50 some odd comments, and I find it odd that nobody has asked the question: "How the _HELL_ did Italian authorities get the jurisdiction to put up a block on a site located in the U.S.?"
For the same reason an american could see his Germany-based DECSS site blocked. DECSS is legal in Germany (where Macrovision isn't), but the american whodunit is subject to american laws.
Re:Nobody has asked this yet? by tommck · 2002-07-10 05:32 · Score: 2

The site was modded from the guy's own PC. They didn't get anyone's permission... they probably just used his cached passwords in Frontpage or whatever product he uses to edit it.
T

--
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Re:Nobody has asked this yet? by alexburke · 2002-07-10 13:48 · Score: 2

That's what you get when you let your FTP client save the password to your provider's FTP server. Tsk tsk...
Re:Nobody has asked this yet? by dotmaudot · 2002-07-10 19:42 · Score: 1

I find it odd that nobody has asked the question: "How the _HELL_ did Italian authorities get the jurisdiction to put up a block on a site located in the U.S.?"
IANAL, but (unfortunately :-)) I know a few lawyers. When talking about a similar case in a now-dead "Italian Internet Governance Project", they explained me that an Italian citizen is liable for Italian law even if he did not commit his (Italian) crime in Italy!

Therefore I believe that the people who registered the domains are Italian citizens, and this gave Italian police the necessary loophole.
A stranger thing: I am rather sure that a pronunciation from the Corte Costituzionale (More or less an equivalent of the Supreme Court) stated that blasphemy is only against the name of God, and not against the Virgin Mary.
ciao, .mau.

The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by FreeUser · 2002-07-09 23:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously... how long would you last wearing a 'FUCK AMERICA - UBL FOR PRESIDENT' T-shirt in the US? Its the same with 'blasphemous' T-shirts in the Vatican -- except the Vatican doens't kill people who try that anymore.

First, you won't get killed in America for wearing such a T-shirt either (unless you go out of your way to get out to some obscure redneck bar on the ass of the world, somewhere in the deep south or Texas, but then, you're endangering yourself if you go hang out with such yahoos regardless, where people have been hassled for wearing a FreeBSD T-shirt because "it has the devil on it." Kind of like going to South-Central LA dressed as a Klansman, and I would warrant that if you go looking for trouble deliberately like this, you'll have similiar results in just about any country in the world. Try wearing Nazi regalia into a bar in Germany, or France, or the Netherlands, or a T-shirt with a pakistani flag on it in Delhi, etc.).

And don't be so sure and self righteous in making the claim that the vatican isn't killing people. If you talk someone into jumping off a cliff, and they reluctantly take your advice, you are most certainly a party to murder (Dr. Kavorkian in contrast never talked anyone into suicide, he just lent a hand to those who'd already decided, but I digress). The Vatican has actively been discouraging suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H believers in Africa not to use condoms, even to prevent the spread of AIDS (with the Vatican knowing full well that without condoms the disease would spread faster and wider than otherwise), threatening those poor men and women with an eternity of torment by fire if they take that small precaution against the spread of AIDS (and those poor people believe that nonsense and take the Vatican's admonitions to heart). This influence, with the full weight and authority of the church behind it, has helped fuel an epidemic which has killed millions, and as far as I'm concerned much of that blood is on the Vatican's hands. I won't go into the racial component of this atrocity, except to say that it wouldn't surprise me if some of the old, white men in the upper echelons of the Vatican weren't secretly pleased with the results of their policies.

So the Vatican may not kill you for beshmirching the name of a legendary, likely never-having-existed woman who sired the bastard Christian demigod Jesus (though they do apparently think nothing of violating your basic right of free expression for doing so), but they'll certainly encourage you to kill yourself via unsafe sex, especially if you're an African.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by TheAJofOZ · 2002-07-10 00:07 · Score: 2

though they do apparently think nothing of violating your basic right of free expression for doing so
erm, you don't have a basic right of free expression. *If* you live in America then your society has decided that you should be given the right of free speech/expression, however this is not a granted thing. It is possible for American society to change the constitution and revoke the right to free speech (not probable, but possible).
In Italy, society has most likely decided that you have a right to free speech within the bounds of society's guidelines. ie: they have chosen to give society the right of sensorship and for them it works and most of the people there are happy with it.
There is absolutely no reason why free speech is a required right, it may be desireable but it is never required and society can function extremely well without it (look at pretty much anywhere outside of the USA).
Having said that, it should be noted that I am not arguing either for or against free speech just noting that you shouldn't be forcing your values upon the poor Italians - they can make (and have made) their own decisions on these matters.
The rest of your argument I tend to agree with though I see both sides of the matter a little more. I'd also note (for the general populous not so much FreeUser himself) that the no contraception policy is a Catholic thing and not a general Christian trait. Many churches fully support the use of contraception.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by edrugtrader · 2002-07-10 00:12 · Score: 1, Troll

brilliant post and reply... all this from my 'troll'.

this just shows that people have the right to not accept the free speech of other people, and, to a point, legally oppress it.

if you don't like what anyone says, just ignore it and live a much happier life.

--
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by TheAJofOZ · 2002-07-10 00:20 · Score: 2

brilliant post and reply... all this from my 'troll'.
Thank you. Your attempted troll was pathetic though - it was actually a very insightful comment. :)
if you don't like what anyone says, just ignore it and live a much happier life.
That's my general policy - unless there's a good argument in it....
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by edrugtrader · 2002-07-10 00:32 · Score: 2

i meant it to be insightful... with every intent that it be moderated -1 troll because people don't agree with it.

most slashdot readers have never served for our country or understand the power of freedom.

moderators need something that serves this purpose.... (+1 disagree, well stated)

--
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by FreeUser · 2002-07-10 00:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

erm, you don't have a basic right of free expression.

Um ... yes you do, if your country is one of the signatories to the UN's charter of basic human rights, which last I checked Italy was.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by qubit64 · 2002-07-10 00:54 · Score: 1

no, africans are killing themselves. they are the ones who need to confront the problems of aids. if they're listening to what the vatican has to say then again, that's their problem. they should know better than to listen to what a bunch of celibate guys (nudge nudge wink wink, say no more) have to say about sex.

--
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by RobinH · 2002-07-10 01:06 · Score: 2

There is absolutely no reason why free speech is a required right, it may be desireable but it is never required and society can function extremely well without it (look at pretty much anywhere outside of the USA).

You can't be serious. You think that there's no such thing as free speech outside of the USA? What about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In particular, check out the section titled "Fundamental Freedoms". I guess I probably have to remind you that Canada is, in fact, outside of the USA.

Anyone else live outside the USA and have freedom of speech? Speak up!

--
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Simon+Kongshoj · 2002-07-10 01:23 · Score: 0

Freedom of speech is a human right, which means that international society has decided that it is a right which must extend to all members of the human species. This makes it the duty of nations to implement such a right.
There is absolutely no reason why free speech is a required right, it may be desireable but it is never required and society can function extremely well without it (look at pretty much anywhere outside of the USA).
Eh? There are lots of places outside the USA which implements free speech rights. Here in Europe, you can even speak freely about encryption technology and document flaws in computer security systems. ;)
Because a bunch of religious nutcases in Italy decides to censor "blasphemy", the rest of the non-US world isn't necessarily becoming keen on censorship.

--
Six sick .sigs, the Number of the Beast!
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by SDF-7 · 2002-07-10 01:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

Seems to me that if these people were taking the Vatican's teachings to heart as you say, the epidemic would be over in a generation or two.

Or did you forget that HUGE chunk on no sex until marriage and stay faithful after that? Yes, it won't solve everything (transmission via blood banks, mother/child transmission, etc.) but that's definately going to put a big crimp in things -- and makes the contraception issue much more reasonable.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by bulfinch · 2002-07-10 01:27 · Score: 1

Those so far replying to The AJofOZ:
that's not what he's saying.
He's saying that the right to free expression is not some right you inherently get for being human. He's saying it is a privelage you get for belonging to certain groups, such as the USA. And he didn't say there are NO other groups besides the USA who offer this, he just meant there are plenty that don't.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Nomad128 · 2002-07-10 01:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

This comment holds weight if and only if people *must* have sex. *Must* they? No, sex is never a necessity for individual survival.

Rest assured that the same Church that teaches the African people the moral dangers of using condoms also teaches them about the morTal danger, to themselves and to the rest of their community, of having sex outside of wedlock. The people who willingly violate the teachings of the Church are not "poor people" who don't know any better; they know why their people are dying, and they know how they can stop it, the same way it is in the US.

Want hard data to back up the Church's teaching on sex? Try http://marriage.rutgers.edu
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Simon+Kongshoj · 2002-07-10 01:52 · Score: 0

He's saying that the right to free expression is not some right you inherently get for being human.
But since free speech is a human right, that's exactly what it is -- or at least, what it is supposed to be.
He's saying it is a privelage you get for belonging to certain groups, such as the USA.
Only if the human rights were abolished, and only national rights (like the US constitutional rights) applied. Fortunately, that's not how it is -- at least not in theory. The fact that many nations don't respect the human rights doesn't mean that they become privileges rather than rights.

--
Six sick .sigs, the Number of the Beast!
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:54 · Score: 0

It's called Freedom of Expressing your Opinion. Or something, difficult to translate ;).
I'm not sure what it says because I live in a democracy, and who besides reads laws? Most Americans most likely only read their constitution too -- the DMCA et al being notable exceptions for /.ers.
But it's a more descriptive phrase I think. Makes it clear that slander, racism (stating false things about a race as the truth, to be more precise) et al aren't allowed.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by smashr · 2002-07-10 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wow! I am impressed, you really managed to distort the truth on that one. What the vatican says is, "Don't have premarital sex" which is what would cause the MASSIVE spread of AIDS in africa. You managed to twist "dont have premartial sex, and dont use contraceptives" into "the vatican is making people get AIDS by forbidding contraceptives" Ummm.... i think you missed a few things in between. If these people werent having premartial sex in the FIRST place, then they wouldnt get AIDS, now would they, and you couldnt accuse the vatican of killing people. Doesnt anyone else think it is more than a tad absurd that the vatican is being accused of killing people? I mean, sure censoring web sites is questionable. I am not 100% familiar with the laws in Italy and the content and activities of the site, so I cant make a judgement... but killing people?
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by praedor · 2002-07-10 02:23 · Score: 2, Flamebait

Trying to tell people not to have sex is like telling them to stop eating. It IS necessary - no matter what you think. It is necessary and driven on an instinctual, biological imperative level. How else do you explain the "need" to murder men and women (most particularly and predominantly women) for having sex or sexual affairs in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc? They are NEVER short of people to murder because they had sex (or even held hands for that matter). If the clear and present threat of being stoned to death post haste isn't enough to prevent the activity, simply admonishing against it on the false BELIEF that it is truly a open "choice" rather than a very powerful, basic DRIVE isn't going to work. Period.

Since "Just say no" DOESN'T WORK/CANNOT WORK (no matter what, there will be many, many people- the normal ones at that - who do it anyway). If you must, admonish against it but keep in mind that it is nonetheless a total and absolute right for people to have sex (a "choice" guided by biological imperative) and accept that reality. Thus teach birthcontrol because no matter what, there will always be a significant number of people who will do it no matter what you say. They have a right to do it and they have a right not be be murdered, directly or by proxy of WRONG and Dark Age nonsensical beliefs about the "evils" of birthcontrol and REAL disease prevention.

To conclude, the Vatican takes advantage of the ignorance and fear of many in the 3rd World by warning them of nonexistent hellfire and damnation if they use condoms, take a bc pill, etc. This is tantamount to murder. They KNOWINGLY use the ignorance and fear of the uneducated for the sake of "sexless" old white men (yeah right...boy-toy alterboys and homosexual priestly encounters have ALWAYS been a large part of the Catholic hierarcy "tradition").

--
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by orthogonal · 2002-07-10 02:26 · Score: 1

"*If* you live in America then your society has decided that you should be given the right of free speech/expression, however this is not a granted thing. It is possible for American society to change the constitution and revoke the right to free speech (not probable, but possible).

In Italy, society has most likely decided that you have a right to free speech within the bounds of society's guidelines."

We call it a "right", not a "privilege", because we believe that it cannot be given -- or taken away -- by government, or even given away by its possesor. That's the essentially message of the American Declaration of Independence.

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:44 · Score: 0

Yo, at least the Vatican admits AIDS is sexually transmitted. Mbeki is still telling his people that you can't get AIDS by having sex.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by cje · 2002-07-10 02:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Rest assured that the same Church that teaches the African people the moral dangers of using condoms ..

The "moral dangers" you speak of are your moral dangers; they are not my moral dangers and they are certainly not the moral dangers of the African people. You have the "benefit" of having been raised in an environment where sex is considered to be dirty and condoms are evil, though this is not part of the African culture. You have an arbitrary set of restrictions that you choose to impose upon yourself, you expect an entire continent to do the same, and when they fail to do so, you wring your hands in despair and pronounce that the people of this continent are getting what they deserve.

Pardon me for not considering this to be a particularly useful attitude. Condoms are extraordinarily effective in reducing rates of HIV transmission, and no amount of Catholic dogma can change that fact.

they know why their people are dying, and they know how they can stop it, the same way it is in the US.

The "same way it is in the US?" Are you seriously suggesting that sex in the US is rare outside of marriage, and that condoms are never used here? You are shooting yourself in the foot -- badly.

--
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by bulfinch · 2002-07-10 03:40 · Score: 1

It would take a very gullible person to believe that rights cannot be taken away by the government. I would venture to say that it happens often. Which is why I prefer to refer to them as privelages. There are no such things as "inalienable rights."
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by bulfinch · 2002-07-10 03:51 · Score: 1

Yes, free speech is *supposed to be* a human right, and yes *in theory* human rights take precedence over national ones. The key point is that in *reality,* there are no such things as inherent human rights. To speak of them as if they had any basis in reality is to mock people whose "rights" have been violated.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by alienmole · 2002-07-10 04:59 · Score: 1

So the Vatican may not kill you for beshmirching the name of a legendary, likely never-having-existed woman who sired the bastard Christian demigod Jesus (though they do apparently think nothing of violating your basic right of free expression for doing so), but they'll certainly encourage you to kill yourself via unsafe sex, especially if you're an African.

A wonderful quote, it's going up on my bulletin board, thank you.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by rossz · 2002-07-10 05:32 · Score: 2

Wrong. The Constitution does not grant free speech. It is considered an inherent right and can not be revoked. The Constitution merely enforces that the government can not interfere with your free speech.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:46 · Score: 0

The idea is: are you some person who lets their instincts twitch you around like a puppet or like an animal? Or are you a rational, thinking human being that enjoys more intellectual stimulation? Indeed, sex is needed if you do let your instincts twitch you around like a puppet.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Christianfreak · 2002-07-10 05:55 · Score: 1

Trying to tell people not to have sex is like telling them to stop eating. It IS necessary - no matter what you think.

Funny I did it for 22 years and didn't have a problem. I'm still alive, and now I'm happily married.

People choose to have sex. If they chose not it it would save a lot more people than condoms ever will, it is impossible to deny that.

--
The Anti-Blog
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Josip · 2002-07-10 06:02 · Score: 1

Are you serious? How did this get modded up so high? To make such a sensationalistic statement makes it fairly obvious that you have an agenda yourself (trolling, perhaps?)

"So the Vatican may not kill you for beshmirching the name of a legendary, likely never-having-existed woman who sired the bastard Christian demigod Jesus (though they do apparently think nothing of violating your basic right of free expression for doing so), but they'll certainly encourage you to kill yourself via unsafe sex, especially if you're an African."
).

Their policy is that the act of sex is meant for procreation. That using a condom is obviously meant to circumvent this. Abstinence is their recommendation. Until marriage, of course. Nothing else.

Yes, I am Catholic. Do I agree with all of their tenets? No. Have I used a condom before? Yes. Do I disagree with their attempts at censorship? Yes.

Stop making everything so black and white. I'm sure there are bishops dancing in private over the deaths of AIDS victims. Your whole statement has the intellectual force of a racists rantings, except you're pointing your hatred squarely at the Catholic church.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 16:15 · Score: 0

People choose to have sex. If they chose not it it would save a lot more people than condoms ever will, it is impossible to deny that.

Well, let me be the first to do the impossible. I deny it! (Note, you didn't say I had to back up the denial... now that I have defeated the impossible, I will concentrate on FTL travel).

If people chose not to have sex, it would save a lot more people... being born. Personally, I think this is a crazy attitude - survival of the species requires sex, and every one of us is built with the necessary urges to fulfil that requirement.
Just because you choose to ignore your basic biological callings doesn't make lesser men of those who don't, nor does it mean they are spreading disease (except in the form of more humans).
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 16:18 · Score: 0

they know why their people are dying, and they know how they can stop it, the same way it is in the US.

The "same way it is in the US?" Are you seriously suggesting that sex in the US is rare outside of marriage, and that condoms are never used here? You are shooting yourself in the foot -- badly.

I don't agree with the OP, but he's not saying that... running it through the comprehension filter yields:
They know the risks and the solutions, much as the people of the US do.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 16:29 · Score: 0

Ouch! Only smart people like ME can abstain from sex. You're all no better than animals.

I say sex is needed for a healthy lifestyle, lest one become arrogant, elitist, selfish, and maladjusted. Like you just demonstrated.
Re:The Vatican is killing thousands of Africans by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-18 06:05 · Score: 0

Murder is just as natural as sex. Look at the animal kingdom ... you can't deny it.

Re:well... i'm american... by TheAJofOZ · 2002-07-09 23:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

i would hope any american could wear a FUCK AMERICA tshirt every day of their lives and live free

You would hope that but it only happens to an extent. Yes they can live "free" but they sure as heck would be persecuted at every opportunity.

Also note that if you'd gone around New York on Sept 11 supporting Allah, you probably would have been locked up just to keep the peace. There are limits to free speech and just because it's in the constitution in America doesn't mean it's a sure thing there.

Whether all this is good and bad is left to your right to free choice - something notably absent in the American constitution, directly anyhow.

Re:well... i'm american... by gowen · 2002-07-09 23:59 · Score: 1

I would hope any american could wear a FUCK AMERICA tshirt every day of their lives and live free.

that is the entire point of america.

I'd hope so to. I wouldn't recommend going to watch the Seattle Mariners in it though... I wonder if you could wear these shirts to see Amen

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.

Obscured only the main page... by fasuin · 2002-07-09 23:59 · Score: 1

http://www.porcamadonna.com/ is obscured... but if you point to this it works... http://www.porcamadonna.com/index2f.html (found using google cache obvioulsy!)

Re:God Save The Queen by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 00:03 · Score: 0

God save the Queen
the fascist regime,
they made you a moron
a potential H-bomb.

God save the Queen
she ain't no human being.
There is no future
in England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need.
There's no future
there's no future
there's no future for you

God save the Queen
we mean it man
we love our queen
God saves

God save the Queen
'cos tourists are money
and our figurehead
is not what she seems

Oh God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
all crimes are paid.

When there's no future
how can there be sin
we're the flowers
in the dustbin
we're the poison
in your human machine
we're the future
you're future

God save the Queen
we mean it man
we love our queen
God saves

God save the Queen
we mean it man
there is no future
in England's dreaming

No future
no future for you
no fufure for me

Re: what is hate speech? by hofer · 2002-07-10 00:04 · Score: 1

The problem with this is, who decides what is "hate speech"?
In the words of Voltaire: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

There is a very big difference between disagreeing with someone or saying something that is designed to hurt the other person. This is a bit of a theoretic discussion, though, because none of us could see the original sites. And I do agree with you that these actual sites may not have been hate speech at all.

Maybe there are no good rules to find out what is hate speech. If that is true, we have to find them. We do not allow anyone to go and hurt others with their fists, and maybe we should not allow anyone to hurt others with their words.

--
Score:1, Unread

NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMORE by bwoodring · 2002-07-10 00:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Please, show some decency here. This is about as far from funny as imaginable.

Blasphemy by Jim+the+Bad · 2002-07-10 00:13 · Score: 1

...is a victimless crime.

--
-- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"

Re:Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 04:55 · Score: 0

Why is that a crime? No more freedom of speech?

Black Adder by ThePilgrim · 2002-07-10 00:14 · Score: 2

I hope they haven't watched the Black Adder TV show recently.

Who can forget the baby eating bishiop of Bath & Wells

and I distintly rember an episode where a nun confesses to liking the 'hesen under things'

Of cause they may not complain as this was all CofE

--
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns

Re:Black Adder by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 09:33 · Score: 0

Was that the one where they paint the portrait of the bishop in bed with the prostitute and Percy dressed up in leather?
Re:Black Adder by ThePilgrim · 2002-07-11 20:31 · Score: 2

Yes, except Percy was 'the prostitute dressed up in leather'

--
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns

Religion and free speech by Arkan · 2002-07-10 00:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder how any monotheist religion can consider blasphem as a problem, as their very own existence is blasphemous to any polytheist religion.
I wonder how any religion can consider blasphem as a problem, as their very own existence is blasphemous to any atheist.
Let me say that all this affair is a blasphem, as it goes against my very own belief that humans are intelligent beings.

Begone all you blasphemous f...wit, for you're tempering with my reality!

Re:Religion and free speech by fishbowl · 2002-07-22 09:13 · Score: 2

>their very own existence is blasphemous to any
>polytheist religion....

As soon as such a religion controls the seat of government of a Western nation from an independent city-state, historically entrenched
in its means with billions of followers, we might just have to get back to you on that.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Mod this up! Re:Nobody has asked this yet? by CarrionBird · 2002-07-10 00:16 · Score: 1

'cause I'd love to hear the answer myself.

What's the point of borders if everyone's crackpot laws apply to everyone else.

--
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's

Freedom of Speech by Innomi · 2002-07-10 00:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Freedom of speech is not the right to say whatever you want as long as you don't bother anyone, Freedom of speech is the right to say something ESPECIALLY if it offends someone. It's not ok to put up that billboard, but if you really want to put up the money to do it, you have every right to.

Re:Freedom of Speech by pubjames · 2002-07-10 01:08 · Score: 2

It's not ok to put up that billboard, but if you really want to put up the money to do it, you have every right to.

So then, you are saying no line, no limit when it comes to free speech?

You Americans are really confused. Your own legal system defines lots of instances where the line is drawn with regards to "speech". Libel, for instance. If you think libel laws are ok, but that there shouldn't be a law that covers someone putting a billboard in front of a hostipal with "Has someone you loved just died of cancer? Ha ha ha! That's funny!", then you are confused.
Re:Freedom of Speech by jhines0042 · 2002-07-10 02:00 · Score: 2

Libel is deliberately lying about someone in a public forum in order to defame them.

Like the line in Wayne's World "This man blows goats, I have proof."

That kind of statement, when listened to and believed by people, can cause damage to ones reputation, loss of buisiness, or other real problems. The libel laws give people a protection from that kind of speech by giving them some way to recoup losses in a court of law. Otherwise you'd have to find your own way to get back at them, like beating the tar out of them.

However, putting up that billboard is not Libel. Its just offensive.

Is America confused? Possibly. Our laws pretend that we are all children and we can't control ourselve or know right from wrong without being told what is right and what is wrong in every specific detail. Yet our Constitution and Bill of Rights treat us like mature adults who can all get along with a basic set of rights.

Someone once said it best. "America's system is horrible, but its the best one out there".

--
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Re:Freedom of Speech by RandomPeon · 2002-07-10 02:11 · Score: 2

Libel is not a criminal offense. One may sue for libel and collect damages based on harm to one's reputation. Our standards for libel are pretty high compared to many European states.

Besides defamation, perjury and terroristic threats are about the only things that are illegal non-commercial speech in the US. False advertising and other such things are punishable not because of the speech aspect but because of the commercial aspect.

But you're welcome to convey any true message you want. I like it, because the most offensive ideas have a habit of becoming common sense in a few decades.
Re:Freedom of Speech by jhunsake · 2002-07-10 02:49 · Score: 1

No, "Has someone you loved just died of cancer? Ha ha ha! That's funny!" is clearly an opinion. Libel is promoting false statements as facts. There is a perfect distinction derived from truth.

I personally don't think anyone has the right to not be offended. If someone says something you don't like, ignore them. If a person isn't capable of controlling their own emotions, they have problems far greater than some annoying person.
Re:Freedom of Speech by dtosti · 2002-07-10 05:39 · Score: 1

Freedom of speech is the right to say something ESPECIALLY if it offends someone

I want to see what are your reactions, if you say something bad about a person without proofing your claims. He will certainly sue you for slander.

The same thing applies to religion: if you're in an European country and say something bad about one's religion without proofing that, the other can sue you for slandering and win easily because you cannot demonstrate the truth of your words! And why? Because all religions are made of beliefs that are difficult, or impossible, to demonstrate! So, the courts, for the sake of law, tend to consider this acting as a slandering.

So:

slandering in general == lack of respect for the person

offending one's religion == Lack of respect for the lifestyle choices of that person

freedom of speech == You're free to speech but respect the other's beliefs (a la Voltaire), first

freedom of speech != offending one's religion

'nuff said

MOD PARENT OF PARENT UP! IT IS ACTUALLY FUNNY! by Graelin · 2002-07-10 01:08 · Score: 1

Believe it or not, it is _actually_ funny.

Jesus is a c--t by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:09 · Score: 0

Try searching for Cradle of Filth merchandise.

Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by andrew+cooke · 2002-07-10 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

there have to be limits

Why? Speaking and acting are two different things. Theres an old saying "sticks and bones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" that makes the difference clear.

More importantly, free speech is considered a right because it is useful - because the advantages of people being able to say what they want is more important that the disadvantages. Ant the whole idea of rights is that they let you do things that would otherwise be illegal.

In other words, a right is a permission to do something without limits. This is obvious if you think about it - who needs a right to free speech to say things everyone agrees about? You can say things like that anyway, without the need for the protection from prosecution that a right gives.

--
http://www.acooke.org

Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by pubjames · 2002-07-10 01:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why? Speaking and acting are two different things. Theres an old saying "sticks and bones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" that makes the difference clear.

So libel laws shouldn't exist then? You think it's ok if I take out a full-page ad in the NYTimes saying that I believe you're a child molester?

In other words, a right is a permission to do something without limits.

Um. No it isn't. You have a right to carry a gun, but not a nuclear bomb. If you have a drivers licence then you have a right to drive on the highway, but only if you stay within the speed limit.
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by Jedi+Creed · 2002-07-10 01:38 · Score: 1

In other words, a right is a permission to do something without limits.

You have some interesting theories. I'm glad you're not working in congress. There are limits, and there should be. Remember the Supreme Court's example about screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater?

U.S. citizens have the right to vote, but they have to work within given parameters. You are allowed to vote only once. You must follow the process and be registered to vote. You must be at least 18 years old.

The U.S. was founded on the human right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." However, someone who has grossly violated the law can be put in prison, where this right is temporarily or permanently suspended. Everything has a limit.

Finally, you are ignoring the difference between speech that offends me and speech that I disagree with. Certainly there is overlap, but there is also a big difference. The billboard example is perfect. There are (and should be)many venues where a person can express an affinity for death, but a billboard by a hospital is not (and should not be) one of them.

--
Ready are you? What know you of ready? For eight hundred years have I trained Jedi. - Yoda
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by CrimsonAvenger · 2002-07-10 01:41 · Score: 0

If you have a drivers licence then you have a right to drive on the highway, but only if you stay within the speed limit.
Actually, if you have a driver's license, you have the PRIVILEGE of driving on the highways. You do not have a RIGHT to do so.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by moogla · 2002-07-10 02:27 · Score: 2

I think the point everyone here is circling around but not touching upon is that in the US, you can say pretty much anything you want, but you have to live up to the consequences of what you say. That is, if I claim you're a child molester, and it causes you to lose your job, I'd better have evidence or you can sue. But no one can prevent me from making that claim unless they take out a gag order (and that would be after the fact).

In any case, I think the billboard is a bad example because the local authorities would never approve something so offensive being displayed in public. It would be in the municipalities interest to not insult everyone that drives by.
It's bad for tourism. :-P

--
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by Steve+B · 2002-07-10 02:37 · Score: 2

Remember the Supreme Court's example about screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater?
Indeed I do. It was offered by Oliver Wendell Holmes as a lame rationalization for suppression of free speech in Schenck v. United States .
The phrase, considering its source, should be understood as a metaphor for the old government scam of hyping a bogus crisis in order to justify tyrannical abuses.

--
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 03:49 · Score: 0

> Why? Speaking and acting are two different things. Theres an old saying "sticks and bones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" that makes the difference clear.

Spoken like a good ol' White Ango-Saxon Protestant who's never had to hear nigger! or Jew! or whore! repeatedly thrown at them.

Words have a power, and if you really think 'words will never hurt you', you've just never had the right words used in the right circumstances.
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by HiThere · 2002-07-10 04:01 · Score: 2

There do need to be limits.

Fraud is the primary one that occurs to me.

Clear and present danger would be a good choice too, but it's tricky. If you don't define it clearly enough an unscrupulous government will step through that crack and progressively widen it. (Look at what "National Security" is doing in the US today. Anyone can be held incommunicado without lawyer, bail, or scheduled trial. And without any evidence being presented to justify this, much less provide proof.)

The big problem is that you can't sue the government unless they agree to be sued. So they can do something blatently illegal, and nobody can challenge them. Currently they are just denying that anyone has legal standing, but I don't see anything to stop them from going further.

The point of free speech is to allow one to communicate things that the folk in power don't want communicated. I can see that it's reasonable to attempt to restrict lies, but any power that the government takes in one area tends to be expanded throughout it's range of actions. (Consider the recent activity of the British government wrt reading and retaining copies of e-mail. First it was the police and with lots of restrictions. The restrictions were largely dropped, and now the push is to expand it to "other government agencies" with just which ones being left undefined, presumably this will be interpreted to mean all of them.) So if you give the government the power to restrict lies, then it gets to decide what's a lie and what isn't. Not too smart an idea. Certainly not without a lot of checks and balances, and even then...

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by hofer · 2002-07-10 04:49 · Score: 1

To kill a person and saying "to kill a person" may be different, but speaking is an act. You do have to take responsibility for what you say. It is something that you deliberately do and it does have effects.
Incitement to murder is a crime the same way as murder itself. And it is not free speech, although it is just words that are not supposed to break your bones...

--
Score:1, Unread
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by dtosti · 2002-07-10 05:58 · Score: 1

In other words, a right is a permission to do something without limits.

That's plainly wrong. I think you need to read again your Constitution, or at least any European Union's member Constitution: they truly say that a "right" is a "permission to do something without limits", but they say too: "your right will be limited if the civil society will have an overall gain from those limitations"

In Europe, the freedom of speech/act right is usually unlimited, but not if one's religion is offended. And this why?

Because from 1500 until 1945 the European countries were usually ravaged by wars caused by religious matters!

So, after the 2WW, the main european leaders (Degasperi from Italy and Adenauer from Germany, among the others) while discussing on how avoid future wars, they decided to not consider religious offense as a freedom of speech, thus giving religious minorities the right to sue offenders instead of taking guns against then (and maybe provoking another war...)
Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) by DukeToma · 2002-07-10 10:19 · Score: 1

So you don't think that local authorities would ever approve of something so blatantly offensive to a section of humanity? Catholics Want "Antichrist" Billboard Removed Brian

Yes, it's good to be offensive by abbamouse · 2002-07-10 01:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's a truism that you can't talk about politics or religion without offending people. Offensiveness is not just a necessary evil in a free society, it can also be an important social good. If people aren't deeply moved by speech, it is unlikely to have much effect. That's why actions like wearing an anti-Catholic T-shirt, burning a flag (American, Israeli, Palestinian, etc), or holding a Black Power march through a rich white neighborhood are so effective at getting attention -- they strike at the core of what people believe about society and the world.

Saying "I oppose this or that bit of Catholic doctrine" is just pecking at the surface if your real problem is with the fundamental tenets of Catholicism -- the role of the Vrigin Mary, for example. Those T-shirts are important because they let other doubters in an overwhelmingly Catholic country know that you're not only against Catholicism but you're brave enough to flaunt it in the face of censure (not the same thing as censorship) by the majority.

Censoring offensiveness is therefore not only repressive (and heavily biased in favor of the status quo and the majority), but also an attack on the most important socio-political speech there is. It also shows deep insecurity about one's ability to defend one's own beliefs, and a bizarrely vague approach to "slander," but it would be wrong even if it could be applied consistently.

--
Make cheese not war 8:)

Re:Yes, it's good to be offensive by pel · 2002-07-10 03:36 · Score: 1

The Italian's censorship was of VERY graphic blashemy, not just offensiveness. We're talking about a website whose title is "Porking Mary" and whose content depicts women masturbating theirselves with crucifixes and shots of women dressed as nuns taking it in the backdoor. All this, in a country who is predominantly Catholic and home to the Vatican.

I fail to see the "social good" in allowing this site to exist. The disadvantages far outweigh the advantage (if any) of this site existing. This site is about a very twisted marriage of religion and porn, and not about mere opposition to the Catholic faith.
Re:Yes, it's good to be offensive by macdaddy357 · 2002-07-10 04:52 · Score: 1

Many people disgusted by the church's level of influence, and it's refusal to admit that it has a child molestation problem, or by organized religion in general, or authority figures in general would find the site amusing. It is much like Mr. Hanky and Kenny's Virgin Mary song in an episode of South Park, which I find hilarious! being outrageous is funny. Nuns taking it in the back door? That very idea has me laughing now. If YOU find it offensive, don't look at it.

--
How ya like dat?

Actually, it's NOT the Vatican by Taco+Cowboy · 2002-07-10 01:17 · Score: 2

It's the Italians who carried out the deed.

The Vatican has NO authority over what the Italians did.

And the Italian gummint is "famous" for the intoleration of cyber-anything.

Back in the golden days of Fido-Net, the Italian gummint sent their fully-armed jackboots forcefully broke into sysops' homes in the name of "peace".

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Re:Actually, it's NOT the Vatican by Goose+In+Orbit · 2002-07-10 01:33 · Score: 1

It'll be Berlusconi (is he still Prime Minister?), given that he owns most of the media there
Re:Actually, it's NOT the Vatican by King+Of+Chat · 2002-07-10 01:53 · Score: 2

Hell, it's hard to be funny and right.

BTW RTFA "following a complaint by the Vatican's newspaper"

--
This sig made only from recycled ASCII

More crack mods? by FortKnox · 2002-07-10 01:19 · Score: 0, Troll

I find a lot of Catholic belief particularly offensive, such as their medieval attitudes towards science, their anti-contraceptive stance and their denial of female reproductive rights

Lets look at that statement. Troll folks. Doesn't get much clearer than this. Please moderate it as such.

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!

Re:More crack mods? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:59 · Score: 0

It's not a troll, it's dead on true. Catholocism is forever trying to drag it's followers back to the dark ages, where the church had ultimate power. Any "new, enlightened" advances in the Catholic ideals are inevitably 20-30 years behind the times, and are only conceded because of pure outrage from the rest of modern society.
Re:More crack mods? by orthogonal · 2002-07-10 02:13 · Score: 1

Read it more closely. It's not a troll. It's an analogy.

Poster 1 said, in effect, 'Conflating the Madonna and pornography is highly offensive to many people, and thus should be banned'

Poster 2, who you think is trolling, offered an analogy: 'I find many aspects of Catholicism highly offensive, so should Catholicism be banned according to Poster 1's reasoning?'

He's posing a simple question: is all speech to be treated uniformly and equally, or is some speech more equal than others?

And you are answering, 'any speech that equates the teachings of the Catholic Church with Madonna pornography, or that is critical of the Catholic Church, should be moded down so that fewer people see it.'

Which, ahem, seems to be the crux -- pun intended -- of the problem: you want other people to be prevented from seeing speech with which you disagree.

Why is that? Do you think other people, upon seeing speech with which you disagree, will not disagree with it? Do you find your opponents' views to be that compelling? Or is it that you find your own views so much less convincing than that which they attempt to refute? Perhaps you'd be less afraid of free, unfettered speech if you had more confidence in your own arguments?

--
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?

Cute... by Mulletproof · 2002-07-10 01:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

A good example of how things can get taken way out of context, but as to how well it pertains in this particular situation is up for debate since the pages in question seem to have been taken down. And while it seems you have a particular beef with Christians in general, I feel obligated to point out (as a Christian) that the story is about the Catholic church, which is very different in practice to the rest of Christianity. Feel converted yet?

--
You need a FREE iPod Nano

Re:Cute... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 16:55 · Score: 0

I feel obligated to point out (as a Christian) that the story is about the Catholic church, which is very different in practice to the rest of Christianity.

The Catholic Church *is* the original Christian Church. All other supposed "Christians" are merely apostates and heretics, and should be burnt at the stake forthwith. :)

Re:Mod this up! Re:Nobody has asked this yet? by WildBeast · 2002-07-10 01:34 · Score: 2

Borders are here for the taxpayers to pay even more taxes. Now you can't possibly subject the oh so mighty governments to the same laws.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-07-10 01:40 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You will believe in God! by Rupert · 2002-07-10 01:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

> Which one?

Any god. We don't care, just don't be an atheist.

> How about Satan? Can I be a Satanist?

No. Satan is a fallen angel, not a god. Try again.

> Can I be a Jedi?

No. No god, you see. There may be a church, but there isn't a god.

> How about Hinduism? They've got lots of gods.

That's fine. Just don't be going to the US. They only allow one.

--

--
E_NOSIG

Re:You will believe in God! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:52 · Score: 0

That's fine. Just don't be going to the US. They only allow one.

Except in Utah.

Oh, wait...
Re:You will believe in God! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 11:27 · Score: 0

Ba-da-dum, DING!

Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR by iiii · 2002-07-10 01:40 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Okay, okay, we all solemnly promise not to mod it up "anymore". So it won't go above its current "+5 Funny" score. Thanks for alerting everyone to this.

--
Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again

Italian censorship police website by yack0 · 2002-07-10 01:44 · Score: 1

click

This is apparantly the website for the special unit that has censored these sites.

Kind of seems like this 'special unit' is akin to US Pres. Bush's suggested 'swat team for business crime'. Censorship special forces and SWAT teams to bring criminals to their country club prisons.

Blah, I got up too early and am ranting incoherently. At least one useful link has been provided.

--
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.

What blasphemy by macdaddy357 · 2002-07-10 01:49 · Score: 1

Does anyone have a mirror of the five sites? Did they publish Kenny's Virgin Mary song from South Park? The Screenplay for Dogma? Suras from the Koran? The society of Josephus' research paper that says Flavius Josephus invented the fictional charachter, Jesus, and authored the gospels himself? What are they so afraid of?

--
How ya like dat?

Re:What blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 07:41 · Score: 0

They are not afraid, they are insulted. The site didn't show a opinion or a research article but for example a nude girl playing with a crucifix and bringing it into her pussy.
Re:What blasphemy by macdaddy357 · 2002-07-10 08:31 · Score: 1

Wow! That might be copyright infringement. Didn't posessed Regan do something like that in The Exorcist?

--
How ya like dat?

Wrong! by mikey504 · 2002-07-10 01:49 · Score: 1

The problem with your argument is that what is or is not offensive is determined by an individual's moral beliefs. Freedom of speech is architected specifically to protect people who are in the minority with respect to moral beliefs.

By way of example, pretend I feel like the world is overpopulated and it is irresponsible to have more than one child. Now pretend that most people feel the same way. Given that, we may find a web site where a father and mother proudly display pictures of their seven children repugnant and distasteful. Should they be allowed to deliberately flaunt their irresponsible squandering of the planet's resources, even though they KNOW it is going to irritate the rest of us? Of course they should!

Protect the minority opinion from persecution as vigorously as you can. You just might be in the minority one day.

I thought we were the Popular People's Front... by Goose+In+Orbit · 2002-07-10 01:49 · Score: 1

The Catholic religion should not be confused with Christianity

Very true... to the rest of Christianity I have only one thing to say...

SPLITTERS !!!!!

Re:I am deeply offended ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:52 · Score: 0

Sure thing, fucktard! Thanks for the motherfucking advice! ;)

(If you like swearing, be sure to check out www.tvGoHome.co.uk)

Re:I am deeply offended ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 01:55 · Score: 0

Oops. Its a UK site, so obviously its a .com not a .co.uk address!

http://www.tvgohome.com/

Mother-motherfucking-fucker.

"Man, that motherfucker played some terrible shit"
- Miles Davis (talking about Charlie Parket).

It's True! http://thesource.ofallevil.com/ by Myriad · 2002-07-10 01:58 · Score: 2

Since Bill is the devil is microsoft.com next?

It's true! Don't believe me? Try it: thesource.ofallevil.com

We knew it wsa true all along!

--
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'

Re:It's True! http://thesource.ofallevil.com/ by dattaway · 2002-07-10 02:43 · Score: 2

I was browsing through that site you mentioned and started reading about the .NET project.

Scary.
Re:It's True! http://thesource.ofallevil.com/ by HiThere · 2002-07-10 03:05 · Score: 2

Is http://thesource.ofallevil.com/ a mirror of the MS site? It sure looks like it, and it uses their copyright terms. Interesting cognitive dissonance. I was actually afraid to follow the links (though I did notice that they (many of them) ended up within thesource.ofallevil.com domain.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

the Vatican's newspaper? by WildBeast · 2002-07-10 01:59 · Score: 2

Ok so what exactly was the complaint? I mean the paper might have said that those sites are horrible. Did the article actually ask the law enforcment to intervene?

Give us a link to the article will ya?

It would be kinda ironic that a country without an army wants to use force.

So let me get this straight.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:00 · Score: 0

Europe is a funny place....

Intolerance due to race is really put down in alot of countries over there. Most people consider that a good thing, but heck...I remember legislation they were making over there that practically made it a thought crime.

Intolerance to religeon (or lack thereof) is somehow to be treated any differently? Umm...not. And don't even give me that shit that religeon is a choice...it's like arguing that the jews could have avoided the holocaust by converting. Pullleeeaaase.

I really wish I knew why so many people have to be a dick about religeon. I have never been on a crusade, nor have I been a victim of one. Have you? And how old are you....

Exactly what I was wondering... by Liberal+Mafia · 2002-07-10 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Okay, so the "offenders" were in Italy and subject to Italian jurisdiction. I can think of two ways the Italian police found them:

1. They were dumb enough to put their real names on the site.

2. Italian authorities actually managed to persuade the American ISP's to give them the names of the account holders.

Does anyone know which one it was? I find number 2 even more disturbing. If it's true, what happens if Chinese dissidents put up a website on an American server, and the Chinese authorities ask the ISP for names and information?

At the very least, there should be limits to how much information an ISP can give a foreign government about an account holder.

And another thing: how much money and man-hours did the Italian authorities put into busting these guys for putting up websites they didn't like? The VNUnet article says the investigation lasted two years. Is crime in Italy so scarce that the police have to investigate thought crime to justify their budget?

Re:Exactly what I was wondering... by Riskable · 2002-07-10 02:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

At the very least, there should be limits to how much information an ISP can give a foreign government about an account holder.

I've been pushing for this for a long time now (yes, I've written my representatives). It has less to do with governments, but anyone in general.

Who can call up and ISP and ask for information on one of their customers? ANYONE. Who decides whether or not to give them the information? THE ISP.

If the government REALLY wants to push laws about the Internet, this should be one of their top priorities. They could make a great anti-spam law and at the same time protect the privacy of their citizens in the same bill!

A warrant should be required for information from an ISP, period. The same should go for accusations of abuse, copyright violation, etc. There's no excuse for terminating an account just because it was ACCUSED of violating some law, somewhere. Due process needs to take place. The current setup of various coporations shutting down websites works because, to the ISP (to avoid getting into a legal battle), you're guilty until proven innocent.

This needs to change

--
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
Re:Exactly what I was wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 08:51 · Score: 0

"At the very least, there should be limits to how much information an ISP can give a foreign government about an account holder."

Yep. In your specific example, it should be the equivalent of homicide.
Re:Exactly what I was wondering... by kgasso · 2002-07-22 12:06 · Score: 1

So if I get a letter from the RIAA or MPAA accusing one of my users of swapping copyrighted materials, I'm supposed to tell them to go piss up a rope? Wouldn't that be lovely when they go after us and our upstream providers with injunctions and court orders demanding they shut us off over us refusing to release information on a user? Sorry, but attorneys WILL do this. It's been done before.

Due process means nothing when large corporations can drain your pocket book and waste your time in court for years. Welcome to America, where freedom reigns.
Re:Exactly what I was wondering... by jeremyhu · 2002-07-22 17:06 · Score: 1

So, you're saying that if I see one of my users running 100s of different processes and using up all my resources to sniff out ports on other computers on the internet, I should have to wait for a warrent before terminating their account? No. As a user of the ISP, it is YOUR responsibility to read the privacy policy of the ISP, but seeing as how the ISPs are providing a service to you, and they are a private entity, they can terminate your account as they so desire.

Hey Editors! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:07 · Score: 0

Nice trollin' with this one. This should generate LOTS of ad impressions for you!

Re:Rights (Was: Offensive speech) Mod parent up by delcielo · 2002-07-10 02:08 · Score: 2

Somebody mod the parent of this post up. There are no rights without some limit. In fact, limits are used to guarantee the very rights you value. We have not come far enough as people to allow total and unconditional freedom for everybody. We're too selfish, predatory, and violent to allow society to exist without any limits at all.

Ideals are great; but not many of them can be applied successfully in the world without chipping away at them first.

--
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!

Slashdot crowd... by gaspyy · 2002-07-10 02:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

I have no karma to lose, so I don't really care if I get modded down.

So far, most posts are along the lines of "free speech is great especially if offensive" when it comes to anti-Catholic messages.

However, the same crowd would be outraged if I said that "Bin Laden is a hero" or that "the WTC people deserved to die for being ignorant/arrogant americans." (By looking at the US media, even showing the twin towers or mentioning them seems offending to many).

The truth is that sometimes words hurt. And sometimes they hurt even more than physical abuse.

I usually enjoy reading /. , but whenever we're discussing social issues (as opposed to tech. ones) I can't help feeling disgusted by some of the expressed opinions.

BTW, how do Italians feel about this?

Re:Slashdot crowd... by The+Creator · 2002-07-10 03:07 · Score: 1

However, the same crowd would be outraged if I said that "Bin Laden...

Being outraged and and calling for censurship is not the same thing. Maby you have'nt seen that sig some guy here has. It's something like "I do not agree with a thing you say, but I whould be prepered to die for your right to say it." not an exact quote, but you get the idea.

--

FRA: STFU GTFO
Re:Slashdot crowd... by alizard · 2002-07-10 06:15 · Score: 2

However, the same crowd would be outraged if I said that "Bin Laden is a hero" or that "the WTC people deserved to die for being ignorant/arrogant americans."
So? Very few here would call for removal of your Website if it said things like that, and anyone who did demand that your pro-binLaden site be taken down would be eyeballs deep in flames. Those of us capable of outrage expect to be outraged by some of what we see on the Net. If we don't like something, we click another URL like an adult can be expected to.
whenever we're discussing social issues (as opposed to tech. ones) I can't help feeling disgusted by some of the expressed opinions.
My problem with social-technological issues here is that most of the opinions here on matters of greater social importance than P4 vs Athlon are usually based on willful ignorance and that offends me. However, while I might have that problem with you, I don't have that problem with the slashdot population in this case.
Everybody here knows what censorship issues are and I agree with the consensus that those would tell us what we can read on the Net or think or see need to be destroyed. Perhaps if you ever advance beyond the wannabe category in censorship, we will be expressing a wish for your destruction.
Your opinion disgusts me, but I don't suggest that you be removed from slashdot.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:Moderation is not censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:14 · Score: 0

"Some people just think they're God,"

Wouldn't that be blasphemy too?

Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:16 · Score: 0

I agree totally. I'm getting sick of people posting stupid crap slamming Microsoft (or anyone else) and then having to read it when my settings are set to +3 or even +4. I prefer to read THOUGHTFUL comments and posts, not stupid one liners that just repeat what has been said a million times over. Sure, I may hate certain computer manufacturers, OS's, and other such things, but I don't engage in that kind of slanderous, mindless drivel. I read /. because I think of it as a way for smarter people to exchange ideas and humour that the "commoners" wouldn't appreciate. :~) So please, just try and have some class now and then people, set an example for others who come to the site so they don't think it's a "post your Apple/Microsoft/Intel/whatever hate here" forum.

Null Space

www.jesus.com by Zabu · 2002-07-10 02:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Come get him you italians.

Bathe with Jesus

I think that this is just a clever way to get young women.
Way to go Jesus!
WWJD? Make a website that gets him play.

--
It's all good.

Re:I have never... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:19 · Score: 0

...heard anyone refer to Ann Coulter as eloquent. Some people seem to find her writings compelling though. Me too - in a freak show sort-of-way.

who'd o' thunk it? by ZoneGray · 2002-07-10 02:25 · Score: 2

Geez, if this continues, Italy might become a Catholic nation.

It's been blocked for tax evasion reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:27 · Score: 0

it's not just a question of free speech, the badge on the site is for the Italian tax police. Still doesn't quite answer the question, but it might explain why a US isp was willing to take it down.

Incidentally, the site seems to still be up beyond the homepage. Have a look at

http://www.porcamadonna.com/index2f.html

Re:It's been blocked for tax evasion reasons by Mad+Quacker · 2002-07-10 03:49 · Score: 1

mod parent up! who reads italian? Porcamadonna?

--
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush

Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:30 · Score: 0

Does this seem more like a publicity stunt, aimed at drawing traffic, than anything else? Of course, I did not read the article, this is Slashdot after all.

Re:Mod this up! Re:Nobody has asked this yet? by MrFredBloggs · 2002-07-10 02:31 · Score: 1

>What's the point of borders

Voters like `em. When voters dont like `em they`ll go away.

Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR by BobNET · 2002-07-10 02:48 · Score: 3, Funny

I prefer to read THOUGHTFUL comments and posts, not stupid one liners that just repeat what has been said a million times over.

Then you came to the wrong place...

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 02:51 · Score: 0

Once the theocracy is fully established here you can expect the same thing in the USA. Repent now, before it's too late!

The web archive... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 03:00 · Score: 0

A quick look at archive.org shows that the original front of the site had one
of these disclaimers:

Adult Consent Verification

This Internet site contains content that may be offensive to some viewers.To protect our users from viewing adult oriented material without theirconsent, we require you to read and agree, under the penalty of perjury, the following statements before continuing.Under the penalty of perjury, by selecting "Enter" you clearly state: .. etc.

Sounds like more than enough arse-covering for the purpose. Or are these
disclaimers now even less legally significant than EULAs?

One nation under god by tomdarch · 2002-07-10 03:00 · Score: 4, Funny

Claro?

Would your prefer informative? by HiThere · 2002-07-10 03:01 · Score: 2

I suppose it could be rated insightful.

Perhaps it should just be called generally underrated, without any reasons.

Some people just really despise MS, and look at negative associations as a way to express this. I agree, that nothing more sensible is being expressed here, but that is something felt quite intensely by many people.

And I got a brief smile from the question. And a brief though that went "Well, I guess he isn't *really* the devil."

It's not that much, but I think that it's enough to justify rating it funny. If you don't feel that way about MS, it's probably because you aren't forced to work with their products. Until I had to deal with them I didn't despise them as much either. Of course, their new license agreements help. They're alienating even many long-time friends.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 03:02 · Score: 0

I'm getting sick of people posting stupid crap slamming Microsoft (or anyone else) and then having to read it when my settings are set to +3 or even +4. I prefer to read THOUGHTFUL comments and posts, not stupid one liners that just repeat what has been said a million times over.

For every anti-xxx post, there is at least one "I'm sick of xxx-bashing" reply. If the xxx-bashing posts are annoying, the xxx-bashing-bashing posts are doubly annoying. I.e. yours. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. Shut up, move on.

Re:well... i'm american... by westphalia999 · 2002-07-10 03:06 · Score: 1

You might get your butt kicked by ordinary Americans, but the gov't isn't going to call the FBI to kick in your door. THAT'S the difference, gov't vs. citizen sponsered censorship.

--
..this is but a fantasy..

Hmmm by Jogar+the+Barbarian · 2002-07-10 03:11 · Score: 1

1 Corinthians 2:14
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

I don't know how to fix a car, so I wouldn't tell a mechanic how to do his job.

I don't know how to speak French, so I wouldn't deign to correct a Parisian.

I don't think you have any basis to tell a spirit-filled believer that glossolalia is false.

--
3. Profit!
2. ???
1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!

Re:Hmmm by junkgrep · 2002-07-10 08:39 · Score: 2

---"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."---

Kind of a self-sealing argument, isn't it?

Reminds me of Monty Python with a slight twist... by JudgeFurious · 2002-07-10 03:20 · Score: 1

Nobody expects the "Italian" Inquisition?

Tried to post that in caps and got the obligatory "Don't use so many caps. It's Like YELLING." filter.

You know what? That's something in this world that's got to go. They are BIGGER letters, not yelling. Get over it world. This :) doesn't mean I'm happy either. It just means I've spent too much time in chatrooms and should get outside more often.

And besides, I wanted to yell just then.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.

You haven't been proven... by hackwrench · 2002-07-10 03:25 · Score: 1

does that mean you don't exist?

Perhaps China doesn't exist. You have to see something to "prove" it exists, don't you
Many Americans have not seen China, until then, each American has their own opinion

Wa, ha, ha, ha

Re:You haven't been proven... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:46 · Score: 0

I have seen China many times in papers and tv. I only have seen God as a character of the sci-fi book called "The Bible" and other fiction books and movies based in it.
The evidences that prove "God exists" prove also "The pink flying elephants exist".
Re:You haven't been proven... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 09:54 · Score: 0

Agreed, i'll just keep worshipping Joe Pesci like George Carlton suggested.
Re:You haven't been proven... by JebusIsLord · 2002-07-22 08:35 · Score: 1

That is so weak. There is overwhelming evidence that I exist, such as the fact that I am responding to your grossly illogical post here. Sight is one way we have of collecting evidence, correct, but seeing != proof, as the senses can be deceived. Surely you can, if you concentrate really hard, think of some evidence other than direct vision that China exists. Having trouble? Here are some things to get you started - chinese food, chinese language, maps, the giant panda, chinese immigrants, products "made in china", blah blah blah.

--
Jeremy

Not surprising. by jkujawa · 2002-07-10 03:27 · Score: 2

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1814

Oh, really? by hackwrench · 2002-07-10 03:28 · Score: 1

You are mistaken that God responds to faith. Faith is a service God provides. It is human beings that respond to faith.

Re:Oh, really? by DEBEDb · 2002-07-10 05:23 · Score: 1

Faith is a service God provides

Through JINI? Oh, wait, that's different...

--

Considered harmful.

"Common religious sentiments?" by Fencepost · 2002-07-10 03:30 · Score: 2

Hm. It's probably written much that way in the actual law.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when Roman Catholics are no longer the dominant religion in Italy. Apparently the birth rate among native Italians has dropped (how are those Catholics managing it?), but the Muslim population has been continuing to grow.

--
fencepost
just a little off

Re:"Common religious sentiments?" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 04:16 · Score: 0

You obviously haven't been to Europe.

The funny thing is... by an_mo · 2002-07-10 03:37 · Score: 1

that the page put up by the Italian police still contains the blasphemy. I won't put a link here 'cause I feel bad about writing such blasphemy but any italian can guess what it is, sort of like www.[blasphemyhere].com. Well if you get there you'll find a notice like this (translated from the italian):
Italian Police Special Media Unit This site www.[blasphemyhere].com has been blocked following decree Proc. Pen. Nr. 27463/02 - 26 giugno 2002 from "Procura della Repubblica di Roma"
How clueless can they be?

Glad for now, I'm in America by Lord+Bitman · 2002-07-10 03:37 · Score: 1

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT.

--
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All

If Catholic priests are celibate... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 03:41 · Score: 0

...then why all these settlements about child abuse?

Re:If Catholic priests are celibate... by qubit64 · 2002-07-10 03:57 · Score: 1

That's why I included the monty python reference...

--
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
Re:If Catholic priests are celibate... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 16:06 · Score: 0

Don't be hard on yourself... some of us understood on the first reading =D

Only for obscure definitions of faith by brokeninside · 2002-07-10 03:42 · Score: 1

I have faith in my myself. I can prove that I exist. (Cogito ergo sum.) I haven't disappeared yet.

I also have faith in my children. I have a tremendous multitude of rational reasons to believe that they exist. They haven't disappeared yet.

Perhaps, having listened to too many misguided theist and/or skeptic apologists you are confused on the matter. Faith is not opposed to reason. One can have faith for rational and/or irrational reasons. It is not binary either/or proposition.

Regards,

-l

Re:Only for obscure definitions of faith by DEBEDb · 2002-07-10 05:35 · Score: 1

One can have faith for rational and/or irrational reasons.
You forget that there is no rationalization
for the use of rationality itself. In the end, something must be an axiom, unquestionable.

--

Considered harmful.
Re:Only for obscure definitions of faith by junkgrep · 2002-07-10 10:06 · Score: 2

---In the end, something must be an axiom, unquestionable.---

Axioms are not really truths: they are simply common assumptions. I don't think that it is TRUE that I exist, but it doesn't get me anywhere to deny it, and for most things, most discussions, no one is interested in questioning the matter.

So, in other words, don't confuse the fact that we need axioms to underly all truth with the idea that there must be "true" axioms out there somewhere: there is no such assurance. Axioms aren't true OR false in that way.
Re:Only for obscure definitions of faith by DEBEDb · 2002-07-11 17:07 · Score: 1

I am not confusing fact with axioms.
All I am saying is that an axiom "Bible is true"
is no better or worse than "Bible is not
necessarily true" or "Bible is bullshit"

--

Considered harmful.
Re:Only for obscure definitions of faith by Catbeller · 2002-07-22 09:26 · Score: 2

You are using the word "faith" with entirely different meanings.

Your children exist: faith in them is appropriate. They also need your faith, or you would spend your life making them miserable with your monitoring.

Your faith in their existence is caused by requests for money, medical bills, and the fact you had them in your house. Your faith in their existence is based on observation, cross-checked with the observations of others hat, yes, they went to school, were seen frequently, exist.

Faith in theological terms means that you believe, without possiblity of denial given whatever argument, that whatever your parents told you is true.

The fact that "faith" around the world means that God/Jesus exists, Mohammed went to heaven with the face of a woman, Xenu the galactic overlord really did send billions of drugged bodies to Earth to convert them to thetans, spirits really do exist in animals and trees, crystals create quantum doorways into mystical dimensions, tax cuts really do reduce our debt load, Emperor Hirohito really is descended from the gods of Japan, Joe Smith really did talk to an angel and created Utah, Atlantis existed, sacrificing virgins and wearing their skins really do keep the drought away, witches should be killed, gays should be killed, calico cats really are Satan's minions...

Faith, o mighty faith.

The difference is between faith in a person, meaning trust and understanding, and in other cases, believe without observation or reason, merely because someone told you so, usually when you were three feet tall. And said lesson applied with a stick or a hand if you were a smart ass.

sex = necessary (OT) by No+Such+Agency · 2002-07-10 03:46 · Score: 2

This comment holds weight if and only if people *must* have sex. *Must* they? No, sex is never a necessity for individual survival.

I don't know about you, but I consider sex to be a very important part of being a human being, whether it be solitary (ie. masturbation) or with one or more partners. As well as the obvious mechanism of reproduction, it's part of how we pair-bond with romantic partners, as well as being a simple source of physical pleasure. I can "survive" in a concrete cell, wearing a burlap sack and eating a slurry of proteins, vitamins, carbohydrates and fiber, but life is more than survival. *This* life is more than just a morality test to see if we're going to be allowed into heaven. At least that's what I believe. As for you, have fun praying and cowering in your "cell".

--
Freedom: "I won't!"

see why HavenCo has a good business idea? by Indy1 · 2002-07-10 03:48 · Score: 2

They are perfect for sites like this. After all, if the royal family of Sealand takes pot shots at unauthorized boats in their water, what do you think they'd do to a boat filled with scumbag lawyers in their waters ? :)

--
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!

BBC coverage by gdr · 2002-07-10 03:52 · Score: 1

BBC coverage

From this article:

Police said their censoring of the sites was done so that the "precious freedom of expression" was not used to offend "the dignity of people".

Obviously this freedom is not so precious that you should be allowed to make people who may or may not of existed thousands of years ago look undignified!

Those funny Italians by DrewK · 2002-07-10 03:53 · Score: 1

Coming from a country with a PM who has been convicted three times of serious charges that would have ended his political career in a real country. This is just more "Bread and Circuses" for the masses while corruption continues to rule that country. Besides they need a diversion to try and take their minds off of their poor showing in last month's World Cup.

Re:so heres the story - CORRECTION by fr2ty · 2002-07-10 03:57 · Score: 1

I think it is worth to mention that the t-shirt does not read PORCAMADONNA at all. See for yourself.

"Vuoi comprare una vocale?" means "Do you want to buy a vowel?" BTW.

Victims are "collateral damage." by Peter+Trepan · 2002-07-10 04:00 · Score: 1

The Catholic Church has an ulterior motive for its stance on contraception - making more Catholics. Catholicism is not a very attractive or exciting religion to convert to, so new members are generally born, not made. If they make an exception to this doctrine anywhere, they'll lose their prime source of new membership everywhere. I don't think the higher-ups care too much about these AIDS victims, but I don't think they purposely kill them, either. I'm sure they would love to see all the African Catholics live, reproduce like rabbits, and donate 10% of their income to the Church.

--

Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

The real thing by TheSonicVince · 2002-07-10 04:12 · Score: 0

The real thing around here is not only about censor, it is also about a more critical thing: separation between political and religious powers! I know in the USA it doesn't seem obvious that these two things must be clearly separated ("In God we trust"), but it is so here in Europe. That kind of story makes me think that I could definitely not live in a country where religion would be on power.

--
And then he said: "I'll tell you the meaning of life. It is" and then realized 120 chars are definitely not enough...

I disagree. by Dirk+Pitt · 2002-07-10 04:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think your logic and some of your facts are just plain wrong.

Firstly, Africa is not dominated by the Catholic church. Most countries in Africa are listed between 30-60 percent Catholic, and in my experience these numbers have been inflated. Most tribes have indigenous beliefs that supercede Christian/Muslim doctrine; you've been there and you should know this.

Secondly, let's assume your premise is correct, that Catholicism is dominant. If the people of Africa wouldn't use condoms for fear of eternal damnation, why ON EARTH would they have premarital sex with multiple partners? If they have such strong religious beliefs in terms of sexual practice, who left out this latter core belief in their indoctrination? It just doesn't add up. If this logic was consistent, the Republic of Ireland would have 99% of their population infected.

Lastly, don't forget that the church pours big time and money into African AIDS relief efforts. And unlike many other religions, Catholic relief efforts do not necessarily mean proselytizing missions.

I respect your opinion that Catholics have a job ahead of them in terms of reform, but you're just making some mean, inaccurate conjectures to support an anti-religion stance.

Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR by Enonu · 2002-07-10 04:15 · Score: 2

I'll probably get modded as flaimbait, but this is honest opinion here.

Anti-Microsoft/Bill Gates jokes on Slashdot are trendy. It's like teenagers getting the latest Gap jeans and thinking all the sudden that they're hip the in-crowd. The worst part is that this type of behavior is self-reaffirming. It's funny to them because they think it's funny to others. In reality, it's all quite lame.

Re: it is not about disagreement by hofer · 2002-07-10 04:22 · Score: 1

Sometimes the best way to convince people of your position is to let them have it full bore...

You always fall back to simple disagreement, or an offensive presentation of disagreement, as if hate speech would not exist. It is foolish to say that these are just words, because words do have power. You mentioned some of the finest examples for powerful speakers who used that power well. However, hate speech also works, it mobilises millions and demoralises the victims.

Should those involved in the film be sent to prison?

Come on! Of course we can go to extremes both ways. There is no simple answer.

But why do you pick child pornography as a reference? Is hitting a child any better? I think not. Why then is porn the only exception? It should not be. I do not believe we are so retarded that we are unable to recogise hate speech. Does it lie in the eye of the beholder? Yes. Does a civilised justice system work the same way? Yes. It is not about mechanical rules. They do not apply either to people or to speech. Example: We know what terrorism is (killing civilians) and we know what collateral damage is (killing civilians), but there is a world of a difference between the two, and we do see it.

We should be mature enough and we should regard ourselves mature enough to at least try to judge what we do (and that includes speech) and what it leads to. If that is not true then we are in deep trouble...

--
Score:1, Unread

Christian Reply: WAS (Re:The Tiger Lillies...) by oobeleck · 2002-07-10 04:30 · Score: 2

Nice troll.

As a "fundamentalist" Christian I must say I do find that quite offensive. BUT I would rather you be able to say it. Cause if you have the right to say that, then I have the right to say this:

Romans 5:6-8
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

A sys admin who loves Jesus, WHAT is the world coming too???

Jesus loves you, you stinky little troll...

Re:Christian Reply: WAS (Re:The Tiger Lillies...) by ktulu1115 · 2002-07-10 05:57 · Score: 1

Excellent example of 'loving thy neighbor' I might not agree 100% with all the Christian beliefs but I'd have to give their entire attitude a (Score: 5, Interesting)

--
# fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
#
Re:Christian Reply: WAS (Re:The Tiger Lillies...) by mrfiddlehead · 2002-07-10 10:03 · Score: 1

And I can say that you're posting of that quote from Romans is also quite offensive.

Jesus can bite my arse.

--
:wq
Re:Christian Reply: WAS (Re:The Tiger Lillies...) by Graspee_Leemoor · 2002-07-22 16:21 · Score: 2

" And I can say that you're posting of that quote from Romans is also quite offensive."

And I can say that your inability to distinguish between "your" and "you're" is also quite offensive.

graspee

Great Job policio italiano by neoThoth · 2002-07-10 04:33 · Score: 1

So I did a little digging and found the names of the sites that they were talking about. Google picked up the cache of the site and decided to see if any of the site is still online. Lo and Behold, Presto Magicko...
http://www.porcamadonna.com/index2f.html

I hope I don't lose my Italian Visa over this, but by Zen+Mastuh · 2002-07-10 04:33 · Score: 2

Morte a'lla Vaticana!! Dio cane!

--
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"

Solution: be your own God! by alienmole · 2002-07-10 04:48 · Score: 2

Being your own God seems to work for many charismatic or just plain rich business, political and of course religious leaders in the US. I don't think I need to name names...

What most people don't realize is all the advantages of being your own God: first, you know God exists, so the tricky theological questions are minimized. All doubt evaporates, when you realize that your word is law, and thus you cannot possible ever be wrong, even in theory. You can communicate with God easily, and in fact, you always know what God is thinking. In any case, even the Christians say things like "God is in your heart", so really this "meotheism" is actually consistent with Christianity in that respect. Self-godhood is also, of course, fully consistent with general everday American self-centeredness.

So when I take my citizenship oath, if I have to mention the word God, I'll be thinking of yours truly. USA: one nation under me ! Bwahahaha!

Re:Solution: be your own God! by Bitsy+Boffin · 2002-07-10 12:03 · Score: 2

But being your own god brings it's own little problem, as demonstrated by H2G2

--------
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
------

--
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Re:Solution: be your own God! by Vulture_ · 2002-07-10 21:38 · Score: 1

for proof denies faith
Correction. Proof reinforces faith. Generally, when one suddenly sees God put a hole in the clouds and speak to one in a booming voice, one worships God until the end of one's days, even if one is a (former) atheist.
and without faith I am nothing.
So I can just believe that George W Bush doesn't exist, and he'll go away? Cool!

--
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

Censorship alert! Censorship alert!! by alienmole · 2002-07-10 04:52 · Score: 2

Hey, are you trying to censor the guy because you think he blasphemed? If so, and you are a US resident/citizen, please turn yourself in at the nearest ACLU or EFF offices for corrective brain surgery. Don't worry, a frontal lobotomy will not seriously reduce your ability to believe in imaginary entities.

Yes, you are. by Byteme · 2002-07-10 04:54 · Score: 1

I just being clue-free and irony-deficient?

ctrl-c / ctrl-v is outright IP theft in most cases. It is a joke, laugh.

--
pronoblem

Don't forget by spacefrog · 2002-07-10 04:56 · Score: 1

Don't forget about...

kill killall join

native italians.... by dtosti · 2002-07-10 05:00 · Score: 1

Maybe the muslim population is growing, and native italians' one will remain steady, but I want you to consider that:

1) There's no really "native italian" people. Italian people are truly a melting pot like american one. We have at least 21 different cultures and more than 100 dialects with celtic, french, german, slavonic, latin and spanish ancestry :)

2) Muslim immigrants are a minority of overall immigrants in Italy: the most predominant ethnic groups are from China, Philippine and East Europe: they may be everything but not muslim :)

3) Current government is considering the idea to put the muslim under special control, both because the 9/11 facts and because muslim aren't "good" citizens in the sociological meaning of the term: it's demonstrated that chineses works hard and better and, most important, are more likely to respect their host country laws than muslim immigrants.

4) the predominant muslim "sect" in italy isn't the wahabite one (the one Bin Laden came from) or the shiite one, but the moderate ones who "rules" in Tunisia, Morocco and Libia: all of them are ex-western colonies heavily influenced by French (and Italian) liberal and positivist culture of the nineteenth century.

5) In the near future (not next year, but in two-three year from today) government will setup a plan for increasing birth rate. The government is heavily influenced by conservative parties ("conservative" as in "preserve our traditions!")

Re:native italians.... by junkgrep · 2002-07-10 07:30 · Score: 2

---In the near future (not next year, but in two-three year from today) government will setup a plan for increasing birth rate. The government is heavily influenced by conservative parties ("conservative" as in "preserve our traditions!")---

Heh. That's always an amusing sort of campaign: social conservatives trying to encourage people to fuck more: Conservative fucking coach: That's it, right... no, take that condom off... okay... wait, no! Not in that orfice! God damnit! (is dragged off to jail for blasphemy)

Italian Law On Internet Press. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:01 · Score: 0

First: internet sites must be registered within the nearest police station or tribunal court (as the newspapers), and they should be directed
by a Journalist who is part of the Albo dei Giornalisti (National Journalists Album)

Second: it doesn't matter if you publish it in
Italy or whenever else. If the website is posted
from within Italy, then the piece stays under the
law.

Third: all the rules that rule traditional journalism apply there. That means:
- blasphemy is illegal
- if you aren't registered, you could fall under
"clandestine press".

This time it is not Berlusconi's fault about this shitty law. It passed under the left-wing government pressed by ALL the political parties
(italian politicians are clueless morons...
On the other hand Berlusconi passed worser laws
on everything else).

By the way: the only three kinds of sites closed
by this law are:
- "call girls" sites
- sites with blasphemy
- sites talking about decription of satellites
broadcasts (that falls under the Italian version
of DMCA, law of August 2000)

The other kind of smut, pron and warez was closed
because of bandwidth costs, not else.

jESUS was a Monkey !! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:07 · Score: 0

jESUS want a banana?
bible thumpers will all end up in hell!
big ol' monkey hell!

Eat your vitamens, read your bible, and play with your monkey named jESUS!

Wealth? Taste? by JGoo · 2002-07-10 05:08 · Score: 0

But first, what is that supposed to signify? Do you think that because I am a Christian that I am some kind of stuck up self righteous idiot? Well for one I am the opposite, I am coming clean to everyon that I am a sinner, not that I am better than anyone. Also, I am a poor student. Please tell me how you reached the conlusion I am a man of welth and taste.

Re:Wealth? Taste? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:32 · Score: 0

The line, "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste." is from a song you have probably never heard. It's that horrible satanic rock and roll stuff. It's by the Rolling Stones.
Re:Wealth? Taste? by JGoo · 2002-07-10 05:37 · Score: 0

Aaaha yes I see, well my musical taste are strongly in the vein of Prodigy, Nirvany, Radiohead and REM, and alot more. I do not think your preconceptions of me apply any more than the preconceptions that you percieve me to hold about you. (ok its late now, too much programming) errr... I think that is right... I am 23 btw.

Time to join the CORE by ocie · 2002-07-10 05:19 · Score: 2

the Church Of Reverse Engineering. See if this could be used to overturn DMCA for violating our religous freedoms.

--
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere

landoverbaptist.org...if you like the onion... by lugonn · 2002-07-10 05:26 · Score: 1

...check out this site.

"go home everybody...go home"

Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR by Danse · 2002-07-10 05:32 · Score: 2

Nope. It was trendy a couple years ago I suppose. Now it's just part of the culture. Sometimes it's done as a sort of in-joke. Slashdot is supposed to hate Microsoft, so someone will post these kinds of things all the time. Kind of a game to see how anything in the world can be tied to the evilness of Bill and Microsoft. In a way it's funny. Some of them are so absurd that it's hard not to laugh at them.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer

LOL! Someone mod that up as funny! by JGoo · 2002-07-10 05:34 · Score: 0

Perhaps it's RMI? And Satan uses the XML 'web services' from .NET =)

Re:LOL! Someone mod that up as funny! by DEBEDb · 2002-07-10 06:58 · Score: 1

RPC (Remote Prayer Calls) is more like it.
Though, wait, don't little demons answer it?
RMI, I suppose, is the Vatican improvement
(Remote Mass Invocation).

--

Considered harmful.

Dead Man Pool by A5un · 2002-07-10 05:46 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the pool we used to have in my University. At the beginning of every fall semester, one of the campus newspaper will have this Dead Celebrity pool. If the person you pick died during the school year, you get some points. Of course there are some rules for this pool such as:
- If you kill the person you listed, you will not get any points, but everyone else will.
- Elvis is dead for the purpose of this pool.
- If you want to list Elvis, you have to prove that the king is alive and then subsequently died during the school year.

Of course some (used to be) favourites are:
Queen's mother, Dave Thomas, Mother Theresa, etc..

Re:God, Virgin Mary? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 05:54 · Score: 0

Is god something to eat and virgin Mary something to fuck? Please explain!

Coincides with this Vatican criticising film by RiotXIX · 2002-07-10 05:56 · Score: 1

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0 ,4120,750728,00.html: the review seems pretty interesting.

http://www.amen-lefilm.com/
They tried to have the image above (the poster) banned.

--
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret

This is what you get... by Brian+Knotts · 2002-07-10 06:00 · Score: 2

...when you head down the slippery slope of "thoughtcrime."

The Europeans thought they were being "compassionate" by outlawing "racism" and "xenophobia," even in countries (like Britain) where the citizens' representatives had not voted on the matter.

Now, the tables have been turned, and the leftists are whining now that the precedent they set has been used against them.

I am a Catholic, and, yes, this stuff is offensive to me, but I would not wish for the State to criminalize it. When you use the State, and its implication of force, to control any speech, even the most offensive, you are playing with fire.

Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 06:03 · Score: 0

You're confusing Italy with France. Italy has a relatively small Muslim population. France, has a rather large (6-8 million) Muslim population, too many of whom are busying themselves of late with the burning of synagogues and the like.

Don't see it as censorship... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 06:16 · Score: 0

...see it as modding down a flamebait.

In related news:

Non-provocative painting

Downhill from the Roman Empire by alizard · 2002-07-10 06:43 · Score: 2

The Romans had a saying about situations like this:
"Let the Gods avenge Themselves"

We know that apparently, Madonna hasn't done anything about the site in person. The site was closed down by armed thugs working for a government, not with a lightning bolt directed against either the server or the owners.

This means Madonna doesn't exist, is not offended, or doesn't have the power to do anything about the site content.

If She doesn't exist, there's no cause for action and the Italian government has brought shame upon itself for nothing.

If She doesn't have the power to do anything about it without the help of armed government thugs, why is anyone worshipping Her?

If She does exist and either is not offended or likes the site, where is there a cause for action?

The Roman attitude expressed in "Let the Gods avenge themselves" is wise and based on common sense. The action of the Italian government is based on simple superstition of the sort that should have been left behind when our ancestors climbed down from the trees.

Of course, that last sentence would have put slashdot's existence in danger if its servers and owners were in a primitive country.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:Downhill from the Roman Empire by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 08:02 · Score: 0

If someone would publish pornographic images of your mother om a website wouldn't she expect you to do something about it? And would you leave it to her?
Re:Downhill from the Roman Empire by adb · 2002-07-10 11:19 · Score: 1

If someone would publish pornographic images of your mother om a website wouldn't she expect you to do something about it?

Of course not. Am I my mother's keeper? I doubt she thinks so. She'd be flattered, keep it quiet, or sue, according to her taste.
Re:Downhill from the Roman Empire by radja · 2002-07-11 00:27 · Score: 2

a picture of my mother falls under copyright. my mother has a say in it if someone publishes that. The copyright on the characters Jezus, Mary and god have long since disappeared, since the authors died more than 1000 years ago. Now if the bible was written by Walt Disney, copyright would have been extended several times by now, and we'd see cases of unlicenced christianity. //rdj

--

No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Re:Downhill from the Roman Empire by Eric+Savage · 2002-07-22 11:20 · Score: 1

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but zealots typically believe that that the gods ARE avenging themselves, through the zealot. Unfortunately you can't argue that god(s) didn't tell them to do it any more successfully than they can argue that they were told, and so the argument continues forever...

--

This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.

Re:Dead Man Pool??!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 06:44 · Score: 0

You don't seriously bet on someones death?? That's real sick you know! And its not very polite, not to say rude, agains those people.

whatcha gonna do? by waspleg · 2002-07-10 07:11 · Score: 1

whatcha gonna do when they come for you bad boys bad boys

CARDINALS has been brought to you in part by a grant from vatican city

i wonder if pontiffs get to carry guns. or maybe just medieval torture devices to make it lal more authentic...

Let's do an experiment! by prizog · 2002-07-10 07:14 · Score: 2

Let's find out.

--
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used

DIO NETDRUID by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 07:51 · Score: 0

Commenti: DIO NETDRUID
Dio spiaggia, ogni granello 3 volte porco!
Madonna bianca, gesù bambino nero, madonna puttana!
Dio Cocco bello che se lo prendi ti cresce anche l'uccello!!!
Dio Venditore di panini onti da Bepi!!!
dio samba madonna rumba santi cia cia cia
Porca madonna dello scoglio, impietrata in mezzo alla roccia.

A Well-Organized Child Molestation Ring by sunspot42 · 2002-07-10 08:46 · Score: 1

I find it highly ironic that a well-organized child molestation ring would be concerned about "blasphemy" on the Internet. Perhaps if the leadership of the Catholic Church hadn't spent the last umpteen years facilitating, aiding and abetting child rape, I wouldn't find these actions so hypocritically offensive.

They had to have a gun pointed to their heads before they agreed to start ousting their child-raping priests, but they're able to take swift, decisive action against offensive websites run by third parties? And these guys claim moral authority? Satan himself couldn't run a more twisted operation . . .

Blasphemy could be considered religious expression by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 09:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

Especially in Italy where the Vatican has, in the past, attempted to put people on trial for criticising Church corruption (and there's plenty of that).

Look at what they tried to do to the authors of _Shroud_of_Turin_. That was legitimate criticism of the Church by insiders.

My view of the Church after experiencing several abuses (I happen to be a craddle Catholic) is that it was basically a deal between the wealthy (European black aristocracy, mob, South American plantation owners) who make donations to the Little Sisters of the Power to get their children made bishop. Then they use these political positions to try to screw their enemies/competitors. Years ago they had the Spanish Inquisition too, so they couldn't just preach against how bad X is this (this year the liberals were bad because they support abortion so vote conservative, last year corporations were bad because they aren't for the people, so vote liberal, &c).

The Church is basically a POLITICAL organization that uses superstition to control its members on behalf of its wealthy and powerful patrons.

Blashemy could be considered a form of political protest against an organization that does these types of things.

That's why this type of censorship should not be supported on grounds of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The EU should file a protest.

Just the facts, sorta. by budalite · 2002-07-10 09:19 · Score: 1

This has been floating around. Wish I'd written it.
" Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to
people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that
homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot
be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to
Dr. Laura penned by a US resident:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show and I try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him or her that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you however, regarding some of the specific
laws and how to follow them.

(a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

(b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

(c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

(e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on Sunday (the Sabbath). In
the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it clearly states he should be put to
death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

(f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't know. Can you settle this?

(g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

(h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Lev.19:27. How should they die?

(i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

(j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to
all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
(Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.
20:14).

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you
can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal
and unchanging, and we should do what the bible says.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan. Thanks,"

There will be no points awarded for fending off mirages. Better yet: Steel is strong, but you can't eat it. (You can use that one for about anything you want to advocate.)

Whew.

you can pu tiot on a website by Edmund+Blackadder · 2002-07-10 10:53 · Score: 2

nobody has to look at a website. If it offends you then dont look at it.

Usually religions bitching about "being offended" are just putting on a PR to cover up their attempts to control speach.

Like the muslims that offered a price for the head of salmon Rushdie and then they said it is ok because he offended islam on purpose.

Being offended is part of living in a society with free speach. Half the times i post on slashdot some idiot offends me. So what.

And the great thing about the internet is that you dont have to be offended. There is nothing on the internet, that you are required to see. You dont have to look at anything that offends you.

Anybody that attempts to cencor the internet because they were offended is a liar. They just want to limit other people's ability to reach information.

What do you believe in? by seyton · 2002-07-10 13:23 · Score: 1

Since most of these replies seem to be bashing the Catholic church, I'm just curious; What do you, the common Slashdot reader, believe in?

And in your response, include any relevant background information about yourself (such as your age, whether you have a family or not, etc).

Re:Moderation is not censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 13:53 · Score: 0

Not if the person in question happened to be the pope.

Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 14:52 · Score: 0

Despite the fact that your comment got modded funny (I think YOUR post is the far from funny one ;), what makes you the absolute source of funny?

I happen to know that funny comes from special cows, not you.

You confuse rationality with reality by brokeninside · 2002-07-10 14:53 · Score: 2

All properly formulated axioms are true or false.

Whether we can know if a given axiom is true or false is another issue entirely.

Re: it is not about disagreement by RandomPeon · 2002-07-10 14:56 · Score: 2

You always fall back to simple disagreement, or an offensive presentation of disagreement, as if hate speech would not exist.

I suppose I have in examples. And I agree words have power. The pen truly is often mightier than the sword. And I agree hate speech is not a good thing. But I think we give too much credit to blatant hate speech by banning it.

Come on! Of course we can go to extremes both ways. There is no simple answer.

But the US Supreme Court found my extreme compelling enough to rule for the plaintiff in ACLU v Reno and strike down the COPA, which theoretically banned all such works.

Does a civilised justice system work the same way? Yes. It is not about mechanical rules. They do not apply either to people or to speech. Example: We know what terrorism is (killing civilians) and we know what collateral damage is (killing civilians), but there is a world of a difference between the two, and we do see it.

Agreed. Laws have to consider certain non-mechanical standards all the time. Due dilligence, reasonable person, probable cause, you name it. It's not a crime to throw away an incriminating document because you don't need it anymore, but it is a crime to do so to conceal a crime - tricky ground. Sometimes, as is the case with objectionable speech, the ground is too tricky and a civillized justice system also rejects laws which are vague, arbitray, capricious, or overbroad. Consider this piece by George Carlin. Is it hate speech? I think it's insightful and witty, and it makes a compelling argument against religion IMHO, while being incredibly blunt. A friend thought it should be banned as promoting anti-Catholic bigotry. The "reasonable person" test falls apart pretty fast when we start talking about speech.

We should be mature enough and we should regard ourselves mature enough to at least try to judge what we do (and that includes speech) and what it leads to.

Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors who must come up with sensational cases to gain reelection. (I infer from your spelling you are not an American). Consider this example of a man prosecuted for writing stories which involved sexual acts with children. While actual child pornography is a horrible thing, the child pornography boogeyman is used to justify the prohibition of anything distateful to the majority.

Condoms considered a worse sin than Sex by FreeUser · 2002-07-10 14:59 · Score: 2

Secondly, let's assume your premise is correct, that Catholicism is dominant. If the people of Africa wouldn't use condoms for fear of eternal damnation, why ON EARTH would they have premarital sex with multiple partners? If they have such strong religious beliefs in terms of sexual practice, who left out this latter core belief in their indoctrination? It just doesn't add up. If this logic was consistent, the Republic of Ireland would have 99% of their population infected.

Premarital sex is not considered nearly as serious a sin in current Catholic doctrine as using a condom, or taking birth control. The former is a minor picadello (even in the extreme case, if you are a priest molesting a child entrusted to your care. And no, this isn't a gratuitious stab at the obvious hypocracy of that particular religious order, it exemplifies the difference in severity of the "sin" as defined by that religion. Priests, and lay persons, are routinely forgiven of extreme sexual acts that even mainstream, relatively hedonistic non-religious people would balk at, and allowed to continue their church functions virtually uninterrupted, in stark contrast to using a condom), whereas using birth control is roughly eqauted with having an abortion, which in turn is roughly equated to murder.

As for your naive assumption that conditions in Ireland are in any way analogous to conditions in Africa, your entire premise falls apart. Ireland enjoys a much higher level of education than the African nations in question, and as we all know, the best, indeed the only true innoculant against religion is education.

It is not surprising that most Irish, or for that matter most American, Catholics tell their church to stuff it when told not to use condoms (though even in well-educated America there are a lot of Catholic youth scared to use condoms). To expect the same level of sophistication from countries whos populations are impoverished and largely uneducated is utterly unrelialistic.

Lastly, don't forget that the church pours big time and money into African AIDS relief efforts. And unlike many other religions, Catholic relief efforts do not necessarily mean proselytizing missions.

And I'm sure that is a great comfort to the thousands of Africans (and others) who have unnecissarilly contracted AIDS because they made the lethal mistake of taking their churche's doctrine to heart, rather than dismissing it as the foolish nonsense that it is and protecting themselves.

I respect your opinion that Catholics have a job ahead of them in terms of reform, but you're just making some mean, inaccurate conjectures to support an anti-religion stance.

Nonsense. Nothing I have said is conjecture, it is all publicly available information. You may not believe that the 30% - 60% estimates of Catholic population of these countries is accurate (though I suspect when the church is touting the "good" it does, those numbers suddenly are considered much more reliable). Having spent time in Kenya, Tanzania, and elsewhere I can tell you that the estimates are not inaccurate ... Christianity is pretty dominant everywhere except along the coast (where Islam is more dominant, or at least as dominant) and in the bush (where the old Masai ways tend to be adhered to at least to some degree, though even there there is a great deal of Christian influence), and the impact on those cultures is anything but "good."

As with most places where Christianity is pushing the old culture aside, there is a mix (going to mass on Sunday and doing some pagan rituals at other times, etc., with the Christian beliefs taking on more dominance with each generation).

One thing is absolutely certain, however.

With the exception of a well educated elite, none of the normal people in these places, whether living in an old Masai village and practicing Christianity only occasionally, or living in the city and attending mass every sunday, are in any way equipped to dismiss the full authority of the church when it tells them, with all the authority it can bring to bear, that wearing condoms is a terrible sin.

We in the west take our high education, critical thinking skills, skepticism, and our resultant (relative) freedom from religious oppression for granted ... most people in the world, unfortunately, lack this luxury and, as believers, are profoundly vulnerable to the depridations these sorts of idiotic policies, like the Vatican's condemnation of condoms and birth control, result in.

And, unfortunately, the number of people dying as a result reflect this ugly and unpleasant fact.

It isn't I being cruel toward the Catholic church, it is the Catholic church which is being unspeakably cruel to the poorest, most vulnerable people on the Earth, and they, and that church, and its advocates, should feel nothing but deep shame for what they are doing.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

About time by whereiswaldo · 2002-07-10 16:41 · Score: 1

I don't see why blasphemous content directed against the Lord your God should be tolerated any more than child porn. If you disagree, think about it some more. Would you like "Yo mama" jokes about your mother posted on the Internet?

Re:About time by belg4mit · 2002-07-22 18:26 · Score: 1

Yes, I would. Many people do.
We also like jokes about blondes,
Microsoft engineers, and rabbis.

Don't force your doG upoon me.

--
Were that I say, pancakes?

I didn't expect the Italian Inquisition... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-10 17:04 · Score: 0

Nobody expects the Italian Inquisition!

Re: it is not about disagreement by hofer · 2002-07-10 18:04 · Score: 1

I think we give too much credit to blatant hate speech by banning it.

You are perfectly right, but from my point of view that is because we can not define with mechanical rules what hate speech is. However, I think we should be able to decide it case by case, and this particular news was about taking down specific sites, not sites falling into some sort of hate-speech-category.

Of course we can go to extremes both ways.

But the US Supreme Court found my extreme compelling enough...

I may not have been clear enough, but I was referring to "my extreme" (if you want to put it that way :) not being acceptable. You could say that the Supreme Court did not agree with one extreme (banning), but that does not imply that it agreed with the other. They did not strike down all laws limiting free speech, like laws against public defamation.

Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors...

Why do you elect them in the first place? :-)

--
Score:1, Unread

Re: it is not about disagreement by RandomPeon · 2002-07-10 20:39 · Score: 2

Not in America, at least, where we elect prosecutors...

Why do you elect them in the first place? :-)

Short answer: We made a stupid mistake and overreacted to a problem that's now long gone. Societies have an annoying tendency to do this, and the United States is no exception.

Long answer: Originally, it was to deal with astounding corruption, especially at the lower levels of government. The Progressive Movement felt that if you elect every official they would be accountable and the crooked ones would be voted out, which worked suprisingly well. What they neglected is that elected officials in administrative posts can be too responsive to public opinion, and lack the ability to do necessary but unpopular things, or to refuse to do unjust but popular things. Elected judges are worse, I assure you.

The Progressives did a pretty good job of cleaning up our government, but they also made those charged with executing laws hyper-responsive to popular passions of the moment. It's one thing to have a legislature that is extremely responsive to public opinion, they have to debate, agree, and compromise to take any action. It is entirely different to have a single person who has both the authority to act and must answer to the public, often only about the most sensational issues. Incumbents only lose such elections if they have "screwed up", i.e. done something controversial. Otherwise, no one gives a damn. This also means a few extremists from the left or right can get their candidate elected to these minor offices just by caring enough to vote. (Such elections are often held in odd-numbered years, when neither the President, Congress, the governor, or the state legsislature stands for election.)

Picking of nits. by Vulture_ · 2002-07-10 21:29 · Score: 1

Unfortunately according to law Jesus and the Virgin Mary are both dead, and therefore can not actually be slandered.

Actually, Jesus is missing and presumed dead.

--

The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC

Re:Picking of nits. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 08:14 · Score: 0

No, Jesus was confirmed dead by the roman officers charged with the execution..

Perhaps it's already here... by hackwrench · 2002-07-11 02:54 · Score: 1

If you cosider the not so unlikely possibility that Bible translators have difficulty with prepositions, or the propositions themselves being a result of the [lack of] technology available in that Era the passage in Revelations can be read as follows: He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark [of] the right hand or [of]his forhead. That could refer to the state I.D card [mark of forhead] and signature[mark of the right hand]. You need them before you can do anything to earn money in the U.S. Besides that issue, there are only two elements that people distinguish it from a mark of the beast, neither of which are inherent in the Bible verse, per se: One, it isn't used for every transaction, (i.e, shopping), and two, it is easily forged.

Proof that God exists by hackwrench · 2002-07-11 10:49 · Score: 1

You must not be looking too hard Survival of the fittest itself is evidence of something deserving the title of 'God', though not conclusive, for something must cause a determination of fitness to be formed, and that cause could very well be considered 'God'.
In considering whether God exists, first a determination of what qualities need to be met to have the title of God.
Only then can a determination be made as to whether something exists deserving that title.
At any rate survival of the fittest would seem to be evidence that leads to the possibility of the existance of God, but not to that of the existance of pink flying elephants, so look harder.

The Bible... by hackwrench · 2002-07-11 11:10 · Score: 1

Does anyone know where I can get something that perports to be a translated verion of a pre-Nicean copy.

In a related news item by gelfling · 2002-07-22 07:44 · Score: 2

The entire religion of Hinduism disconnected all Burger King websites from the internet. Their claim that BK Deluxe with Cheese blasphemed their most holy sacred cows was accepted by the EU as "Good enough for us, yeah".

Jesus F***ing Himself by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 08:06 · Score: 0

Jesus Fucking Christ!!

So because to Christians, Jesus == Christ, then that means "Jesus F___ing Himself", that is "Jesus Masturbating".

Don't mess with the Pope by Aqua+OS+X · 2002-07-22 08:10 · Score: 2

Hey, don't mess with the Pope. He'll take down your site... and then shoot you.

--
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"

Re:well... i'm american... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 08:52 · Score: 0

'Seriously... how long would you last wearing a 'FUCK AMERICA - UBL FOR PRESIDENT' T-shirt in the US? '

Depends where you are. Small town middle of nowhere and possibly lower manhattan are the two worst spots.

OT: The former WTC site is not a tourist attraction. Please stop treating it like one.

At the current rate, we're gonna have T-Shirts that say 'I visited Ground Zero and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt'

Vatican isn't part of Italy, deserves ccTLD by billstewart · 2002-07-22 10:03 · Score: 1

Why shouldn't the Vatican have its own top-level country-code domain? (Ignoring the issue of whether CCTLDs are a good idea...) It's surrounded by Italy, but it's a separate country, just like Monte Carlo, Lichtenstein, and other small governments left over from before the big governments took over Western Europe (primarily France and the various German and Austro-Hungarian conquerors.) Now, if you're offended that the Church used to run secular governments like the Papal States instead of sticking to spiritual matters, or that the Pope is more powerful than many other bishops, that's a separate issue, but there's no reason that the Italian government should be running their city.*

* I thought we were sort of an autonomous collective....

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Hacked in, possibly illegally by billstewart · 2002-07-22 10:20 · Score: 2

According to the article, the police used the offenders' PC and password to log in to the web site and change it. It didn't say how they got the password - was it saved on the PC, written on a yellow sticky note, or did they beat it out of the suspects? In any case, they didn't contact the US site or order them to take it down, so they didn't apply any jurisdiction over them, they just took direct action.

The catch is - Does this violate US laws against cracking into computers? Can it be construed as using illegally obtained passwords, and can the Italian police be charged under US law as illegal hackers? Would the US actually prosecute? Could it enforce a judgement if it succeeded? Would the ISP enjoy taking this to the World Court or some similar body? It appears from the news article that the accused blasphemers haven't been convicted of any crime yet, only accused, and this was part of the police investigation; don't know if that makes it legal under Italian law.

The one US datapoint I have for similar laws is that blasphemy was illegal in Delaware until 1968, when a court threw out both the blasphemy law (for violating the First Amendment) and the prescribed punishment ( N lashes at the whipping post, as cruel and unusual). The blasphemy laws hadn't actually been applied in ages until that case; don't know how often whipping was still used before then.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:The Vatican is *not* killing thousands of Afric by voisine · 2002-07-22 11:18 · Score: 1

How do you figure the Cothlic chruch's stance
against condoms helps to spread HIV? If you follow
their teachings, don't use condoms, don't have sex
outside of marriage, you're fine. If you don't
follow their teachings, use condoms and have
extra-marital sex, you still much more likely to
catch HIV. Why would anybody not use condoms *and*
have sex outside of marriage? Certianly not
somehting good Catholics participate in.

Unite behind who and why? by Benjaman+McFree · 2002-07-22 11:45 · Score: 0

Perhaps the biggest scam in revisionist history is the story of the "breaking apart" of the catholic church!; Perhaps they really didn't break apart, but rather they continued evangilizing the "works" messages to all the other churches, why does the catholic church lock up those spiritually inspired works so tight??

Perhaps the motivation for perverting God's word the fact that they were illiterate and they thought liberaliism and good w0rks was better for economics, eh?

8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

test by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 12:56 · Score: 0

test

Re:NOT ACTUALLY FUNNY, PLEASE DO NOT MOD UP ANYMOR by Anonymous Coward · 2002-07-22 18:38 · Score: 0

Where do we rate the "xxx-bashing-bashing-bashing" posts in this then? I.e. Yours?

Note this is a xxx-bashing-bashing-bashing-question and these are right down the scale.

As a further thought you seem to have "xxx" and "bashing" on your mind quite a lot.

Slashdot Mirror

Italian Police Censor "Blasphemous" Websites

570 comments