Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Detention Threat for Malaysian blogger

Posted by michael on from the keyboard-is-mightier-than-the-sword dept.

Malaysian Patriot writes "The Malaysian blogosphere is currently in uproar as one of their most famous bloggers, a political observer named Jeff Ooi, has been threatened with action under the country's draconian ISA (Internal Security Act) law which allows a person to be detained without trial if he is thought to threaten "national security". The whole problem started with a comment made by a reader of the blog. The comment is alleged to have been insulting of Islam. A national newspaper (whose editor has frequently been a target of Ooi's blog) took up the story and accused the blogger of insulting Islam, while Ooi in his defence states he warned (and later deleted) the offending commenter when he was alerted to it. Malaysian bloggers meanwhile are outraged that a blogger should be held responsible for comments made by readers. In the case of Ooi's blog, which attracts thousands of hits per day, it is logistically impossible for Ooi to read and moderate every comment made. The whole saga can be followed in Jeff Ooi's Screenshots blog."

95 comments

  1. It makes sense. by Anton+Anatopopov · · Score: 0, Troll
    Why should people be allowed to insult Islam, a sincerely held belief that hundreds of millions of people agree with? We would not put up with anyone insulting Christianity. Hell, we don't even let people burn our flag!

    When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?

    I suppose I'll get shot down in flames for pointing this out, but the levels of Islamophobia and general religious intolerance at slashdot are staggering.

    1. Re:It makes sense. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should people be allowed to insult Islam

      Because we should be free to insult anything and anyone. I for one don't find that fact that hundreds of millions of people adhere to a religion that is philosophically stuck in the eighth century (minus all the scientific and cultural progress they were making back then), all that compelling a reason for its merit.

      We would not put up with anyone insulting Christianity

      What planet are you from?

      When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?

      On this we agree.


      I suppose I'll get shot down in flames for pointing this out, but the levels of Islamophobia and general religious intolerance at slashdot are staggering.

      Perhaps, but I do not need to be afraid that I or my children will be nuked, poisoned or infected by militant Buddhists, or Presbyterofascists, or Mormon suicide bombers, because they don't exist. There are no rabbis, or bishops issuing death warrants.

      While there certainly have been Christian, et al, terrorists, they pale in significance by orders of magnitude to those of Islam. No bigotry in this statement, just facts.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:It makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should people be allowed to insult Islam, a sincerely held belief that hundreds of millions of people agree with?

      Because people have the right to their own opinions. Otherwise, you sound more and more like the Thought Police.

      On that note, go ahead and insult Christianity...

    3. Re:It makes sense. by egomaniac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?

      Refusing to believe in something until evidence is submitted is a matter of reason, not religion or faith.

      I don't believe in God.
      I don't believe in unicorns.
      I don't believe in Santa Claus.
      I don't believe in leprechauns.
      I don't believe in Brahma.
      I don't believe in alien abductions.

      Chances are that you and I agree on all of those but the first. You probably also agree that the fact that you don't believe in unicorns is not a religious belief. Doesn't take a religious, faith-based belief to not believe in a stupid fairy tale, does it?

      Now, please explain to me how the fact that I don't believe in unicorns is not a religious belief, but the fact that I don't believe in God is. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    4. Re:It makes sense. by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 3, Funny

      That, dear sir, brings a tear to my eye. I was walking forlornly through the rain last week, throughly depressed at the evident truth that nobody knows how to troll anymore. And today, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and you have shown me that there is at least one person who still practices the ancient art. Thank you.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    5. Re:It makes sense. by magefile · · Score: 1

      Christian terrorists have been big in the past (Crusade was one example; Inquisition another - there are tons), and they still exist today, though, as you said, not as big.

    6. Re:It makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not counting the current US administration, right?

    7. Re:It makes sense. by BlueBlade · · Score: 1
      When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?

      I am so tired of religious people saying that atheism is just another religion. Atheism is simply the absence of belief, not a belief that there is no God. To claim that atheism is a religion is like saying that silence is just another sound or that darkness is some kind of light.

      I think some people simply can't grasp that someone might simply not believe in any kind of God and they try to paint this stance as being just as irrational as any other religion. Doing so allows them to use the 'everybody has a right to his own opinion' argument to legitimize their way of thinking. Underlying that, of course, is the assumption that all opinions are equally valid, wich is, simply put: bullshit.

      Somehow most people seem to understand that irrational beliefs should be discarded, except in the case of religion. If I started saying there was a banana floating mid-air in front of me, people would ask for proof before they believed it. Without proof, they would not pay much respect to my claims, and they'd be right to. I could go on claiming I have the power to make bananas float forever, but as long as I can't demonstrate it, people would say: bullshit.

      Yet somehow, when religion is concerned, that simple test is thrown out the window. Not only people don't expect to be called up on their claims and beliefs, but they expect that their opinions should be respected as being as valid as any other. Anyway, I just wish that religious people would simply understand that not believing in (to atheists) fairy tales does not mean atheism is some other kind of irrational belief. It's just the same as not believing that some guy can make bananas float. That's not religion, it's just rational, critical thinking.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    8. Re:It makes sense. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. The difference between us Christians and those Muslims, is that we Christians moved past that stage.

      Sure there are nutcases who bomb abortion clinics or shoot doctors... there is no lack of denouncement of these deluded and evil acts in any church I've been in.

      No one is perfect, but there is a huge cultural difference here. Some of us are moving into the third millennium, making progress despite being imperfect, while others are mired in the first.

      The hugest irony is that a thousand years ago, the Muslim world was the source of much (even most) scientific and philisophical advancement at the time. The Dark Ages in Europe were never as dark as many believe, but the Middle East was a huge source of artistic creativity and intellectual advancement.

      Wha' hoppen?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    9. Re:It makes sense. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Atheism is simply the absence of belief

      What you're describing is generally known as "agnosticism".

      Atheism by sheer virtue of its etymology means a belief that God does not exist.


      I think some people simply can't grasp that someone might simply not believe in any kind of God and they try to paint this stance as being just as irrational as any other religion.

      I think that some people cannot grasp the idea that a belief in God and practice of religion can be as rational as any empiricist.


      I just wish that religious people would simply understand that not believing in (to atheists) fairy tales does not mean atheism is some other kind of irrational belief.

      Atheism, by definition, is far less rational because of the greater logical difficulty of proving a negative. But I don't mean to get bogged down in semantics. They are two different flavors of faith.

      Agnosticism, which is what you seem to call by the name "atheism" is simply choosing not to decide, which at best is a cop out, and at worst is cowardice. Faith in things unseen is a sine qua non of our existence. I have never seen India, yet there is no doubt in my mind it exists. I have never seen atoms, yet there is no doubt in my mind they exist. I have never seen Abraham Lincoln, yet there is no doubt in my mind he existed. This idea reaches its apex in the Holographic Principle in physics (and rooted in philosophical tradition since the days of Plato), which says, essentially (IANAP), there's no way to know anything is real, so we have to go on what we can perceive, which can be reduced to a quantity of information dictated by the space through with we perceive. Yet without this belief, we cannot really function. Reality is subjective until you smack your face into a wall.

      It is quite reasonable and rational to consider that there are things we cannot perceive or understand but that do exist. Similarly, it is reasonable and rational to consider that these things do not exist. We must judge the logic of these ideas based on the evidence available to us, whether it is empirical proof, or less concrete things such as stories, traditions or moral codes, but in the end you have to trust your gut because ultimately you can't completely trust any other perception. That's faith, whether you decide one way or the other, but it's also rational, critical thinking.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    10. Re:It makes sense. by pjotrb123 · · Score: 1

      This, my friend, is probably the best description ever, and I fully agree.

      A fellow atheist

      --
      I liked my next sig a lot better
    11. Re:It makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Atheism, by definition, is far less rational because of the greater logical difficulty of proving a negative

      Never heard of Occam's Razor then moron. It's a principle which prevents us rational people from having to disprove every nutter's weird medaeval belief system.

    12. Re:It makes sense. by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      The refusal to take sides without -any- good evidence from either side is a cop out or cowardice? You make a good point that true atheism is logically impossible to prove. However, belief without any evidence and no way of testing for truth seems to me to be less a thing to be proud of and more a thing to hide away and never speak of. Yes, I believe India exists, but there's an easy test: I can go there. Now give me an equally simple test for the existance of god.

    13. Re:It makes sense. by onya · · Score: 1

      ever heard of a little spot called northern ireland? 2 christian sects have blowing each other up there for years.

    14. Re:It makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much a religious issue there, but rather a political one. Please inform yourself before you make those statements. From the 'Emerald Island', Max

    15. Re:It makes sense. by onya · · Score: 1

      it's both political and religious, kind of like the original story.

      here in the real world, it's hard to separate the two.

    16. Re:It makes sense. by scowling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you're describing is generally known as "agnosticism".

      And generally incorrectly known as agnosticism. Agnosticism is the philosophy that the existence of gods is unknowable.

      One can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.

      Atheism and agnosticsm are orthogonal.

      I think that some people cannot grasp the idea that a belief in God and practice of religion can be as rational as any empiricist.

      As an agnostic atheist, I hold that belief in God and practice of religion can not be rational. Belief without evidence is not rational belief. There is no evidence for the existence of gods. Therefore belief in gods is irrational.

      Atheism, by definition, is far less rational because of the greater logical difficulty of proving a negative.

      Atheism, by definition, is minimally the lack of belief in gods (the "weak atheist" position). The "strong atheist" point of view, which holds that there are no gods, is also not irrational, due to the positivist axiom that no thing can rationally be said to exist without evidence for its existence; it is therefore rational to deny the existence of anything X for which there is no evidence.

      Shrug. To each their own.

      --
      www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    17. Re:It makes sense. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I can, but you have to die. ;-)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    18. Re:It makes sense. by syrinje · · Score: 1
      I would also point the poster of the grandparent to one of the most insightful and lucid arguments for atheism by Douglas Adams in his (sadly posthumpously published) "Salmon of Doubt".

      It tells the hypothetical story of a puddle of water that franctically clings on to the idea of how well the world around it (namely the hole in the ground that it inhabited by it) is made by God to fit it exactly, even as the sun slowly evaporates and shrinks it.

      Oh heck...who am I kidding...believers discount rationality anyway, might as well save my breath.

      --
      See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
    19. Re:It makes sense. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it doesn't happen, but Northern Ireland isn't on the scale of World War.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    20. Re:It makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • but they expect that their opinions should be respected as being as valid as any other.
      You're GODDAMNED RIGHT they should, especially if you want your own beliefs respected as well.

      If non-Christians want their beliefs respected, they should respect others.

      I don't give a fuck how you come to the decision that you are atheist or agnostic. IT'S STILL AN OPINION, and thus if Christians don't have the right to their opinion, then NEITHER DO YOU.
    21. Re:It makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On that note, go ahead and insult Christianity...

      ok I will:

      "Pat Robertson"

    22. Re:It makes sense. by Dick+Faze · · Score: 1
      When will you Atheists realize that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anything you find in the Bible or the Quran?

      Uh, no. By definition, Aethism is the absence of belief, so, the non-existence of something is NOT something (see your Greeks for an explanation of that one). You don't have to actively not-believe in something, and even if you do, it doesn't constitute a religious belief.

  2. Actually by Schezar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why should people be allowed to insult Islam, a sincerely held belief that hundreds of millions of people agree with? We would not put up with anyone insulting Christianity.

    The First Ammendmend (in the US at least)

    Hell, we don't even let people burn our flag!

    Yes, we do. Flag-burning is protected speech, and the ammendment proposed to change that fact was shot down.

    When will you Atheists realise that your beliefs are just as much a religion as anthing you find in the Bible or the Quran?

    Heh.. Freedom of speech. If you don't like us, speak your mind. If you speak your mind, don't be surprised if we speak right back.

    I suppose I'll get shot down in flames for pointing this out,

    Yes.

    but the levels of Islamophobia and general religious intolerance at slashdot are staggering.

    Hmph.. So there's a vague coorelation between technological savy and intolerance of religion? Fancy that.

    --
    GeekNights!
    Late Night Radio for Geeks!
    1. Re:Actually by Anton+Anatopopov · · Score: 1
      Yes, we do. Flag-burning is protected speech, and the ammendment proposed to change that fact was shot down.

      Are there any forms of 'unprotected speech'? Can you see where this is going?

    2. Re:Actually by RevDobbs · · Score: 1
      Are there any forms of 'unprotected speech'?

      Unfortunatly, most people's speech is unprotected. Personally, I always where a condom when talking... knowing that I'm protected just makes the entire event relaxing and fun, just like it should be.

    3. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The point is, we proscribe speech in those cases where not doing so would cause danger to people. In the case of very Islamic societies, the need to protect Islam from slander is no so much that the religion itself can't take criticism. Quite the opposite, the religion is so self-evidently true to most people in those societies, that the slanderer needs to be protected from their own misguidedness in criticising it.

      Banning people from insulting Islam is no more curbing their freedoms than taking a box of matches away from a child is curbing their freedoms. In a technical sense, I suppose it could be seen as censorship, but in a serious Islamic society, it is in the interest of the kufr/infidel/nonbeliever to have the protection that such a law offers them. Its for their own good. Its too bad they seem unable to realise this :-) LOL!

  3. is it just me... by syrinx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anyone else favor the death penalty for anyone who uses the word (if you can call such an abomination by that name) "blogosphere"?

    Personally I think the Rack is a suitible punishment. Alternately, hot irons under the fingernails, or forced repeated viewings of "Star Trek V".

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    1. Re:is it just me... by escher · · Score: 1

      or forced repeated viewings of "Star Trek V".

      You just went right past "cruel" and slammed straight into "psychotically evil".

  4. I smell a definition flamewar. by antizeus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I have a feeling that you're trolling, but I'll bite anyway. There is much debate regarding the definition of atheism. Most self-identifying atheists define it as a "lack of belief in deities". Many theists and flame warriors define it as "belief in a lack of deities". Some people lack the ability to distinguish the two positions. Some people claim that the first position is actually "agnosticism", while others will reply that "agnosticism" means a belief that the truth or falsehood of the existence of deities is unknowable, and will point to the definition of Aldous Huxley, who coined the term.

    I may have left out some positions in the flame war. Feel free to add any that I missed.

    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
  5. MOD PARENT UP +9999999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Islam is a religion of peace!

  6. This guy is lucky he wasn't executed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insulting islam or mohammed (pig shit be upon him) is a capital offence in many islamodictatorships.

    And for all you supporters of Cat Stevens, he is on the record, multiple times, for supporting exactly that.

  7. Them too? by bizpile · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...under the country's draconian ISA (Internal Security Act) law which allows a person to be detained without trial if he is thought to threaten "national security"...

    They have the Patroit Act too?

    1. Re:Them too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      ...under the country's draconian ISA (Internal Security Act) law which allows a person to be detained without trial if he is thought to threaten "national security"...

      They have the Patroit Act too?
      You do know that power has absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act don't you?

      Of course not. You were just talking out of your ass like a typical slashbot. And of course the idiotic moderators thought you were "insightful". Right.

    2. Re:Them too? by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 1

      I believe the Patriot Act just allows the government to:

      a) snoop into your private life without court order or permission,
      b) detain non-citizens without trial [with exceptions of 'enemy combatants'].
      c) Expires End 2005.

      The ISA has not expiry date and allows the police to detain anyone for arbitrary periods without trial on any suspicion on having acted or likely to act on any matter of national security. The difference is on implementation: the ISA is frequently used against opposition parties, religious fundamentalists, and people merely talking about racial relations. In 1963, 117 opposition and labour union leaders were arrested and some held up to 17 years, in 1987, 106 where arrested, and in 1988, Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who challenged the then Prime Minister Mahathir, was also detained under this Act (subsequently converted to a corruption and sodomy charge).

    3. Re:Them too? by mamatd · · Score: 1

      Being a Malaysian, I have to point out that there are some proud ruling party member who would like to say that the American Patriot Act is copied from Malaysian ISA law, which has been in place since the 60's

    4. Re:Them too? by CrazyMalaysian · · Score: 1

      Yes, our ISA is just like your Patriot Act. As we are a multi-racial society, one where "tolerance" is practiced, we realise that all races are different, and although there is some feeling of superiority with some races, i feel that us malaysians pretend that we are all equal.

      As such, there is some discontent between some races, but we just dont show it. There have been cases of racial riots, so to prevent this, we have the ISA.

      Under the ISA, if the police feel that you pose a threat to national security and stability, they can arrest you, even if there is no justifiable reason that is provided. And like the article states:

      The ISA allows the authorities an initial 60 days during which a detainee is kept in solitary confinement and denied access to lawyers or relatives.

      Is it the same under the Patriot Act?

    5. Re:Them too? by CS+Sinner+Tan · · Score: 1

      Patriot Act = October 24, 2001 ISA = February 1997 (or was it 1998?) ISA appeared before Patroit Act, what can I say? American govrmnt copied Malaysian govrmnt stupidity, I think the Human Rights people comes to Malaysia to voice their complaint, then bring back the ISA to U.S

      --
      -For The wHoreD!!-
    6. Re:Them too? by CS+Sinner+Tan · · Score: 1

      my bad, ISA appeared since the mid 60's

      --
      -For The wHoreD!!-
    7. Re:Them too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Being a Malaysian, I have to point out that there are some proud ruling party member who would like to say that the American Patriot Act is copied from Malaysian ISA law, which has been in place since the 60's


      Being Malaysians, they have no idea what they're talking about... and would it make it right if it were true?

  8. I think someone needs their sarcasm detector fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the title says...

  9. ISA by delta_avi_delta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find it disconcerting that all of the above comments focus on the "insulting Islam" part of the story, and not the "national security" preserving "Internal Security Act" being leveled at a political observer. With a focus like that, and the possibilty of the administration resposible for the Patriot Act being re-elected, don't be too surprised if it's an American blogger in 4 years time. Islam. Islam. Islam. Expose yourself to the word ten times daily until it ceases to trigger alarm bells, and images of turban-clad, gun-toting loonies.

    1. Re:ISA by sadtrev · · Score: 1

      The sad truth is that in a multi-ethnic country like Malaysia, disparaging comments about religion really are a matter of national security.

      The authorities in Malaysia and Singapore tend to clamp down first and ask questions later. The alternative is bloody riot and strife, as happend on numerous occasions in the fifties and sixties, when those quaint post-colonial notions of freedom of expression were popular.

  10. Re:I think someone needs their sarcasm detector fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't sarcasm supposed to be funny?

  11. Narcissistic dweebs by Otter · · Score: 1
    Around here, it's "John Ashcroft is under my bed! Software registration is a crime against humanity! Supermarket discount cards are one step short of concentration camps!" all the day. Meanwhile, this guy is liable to be going to prison -- and not Martha Stewart prison, either -- for posting political views and debate on his website. And what do we get? As of this writing:
    • Two guys complaining about "blogosphere"
    • One troll and seven longwinded biters
    • And two guys yelling "John Ashcroft is under my bed!"

    How about a little perspective? Cut the drama and self-pity for a minute and think about what "Rights Online" really are.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    1. Re:Narcissistic dweebs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And two guys yelling "John Ashcroft is under my bed!"
      How about a little perspective? Cut the drama and self-pity for a minute and think

      Indeed, let us all take pity on Mrs. Ashcroft. It is bad enough that John Ashcroft is under our beds, just think how much worse off we would be if he were in them instead!

    2. Re:Narcissistic dweebs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And two guys yelling "John Ashcroft is under my bed!"

      Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that John Ashcroft isn't under the bed.

  12. Re:Read This Malaysia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God help us. We can't even f'ing spell.

  13. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A matter of reason surveys the current state of a question and seeks to generate a testable hypothesis. Whether there is or is not a God, is entirely a domain of faith for a religion where the will of a supremely powerful being is to not be directly observable. The conjecture of whether there is or is not a Judeo-Christian God is unprovable. Requiring the God to either entertain our whims, and reveal itself, or for man to complete a survey of the universe and everything in it. Only one of those even might happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It is wholly in the domain of the human experience abdicated by science since it requires belief without proof.

    That said, emotionally I'm an atheist. Rationally, I'd have to admit I'm agnostic. What I find interesting if my believe there is no God, is just through the large numbers of iterations there's some coincidental evidence of a Christian God. But I, quite happily, and supremely confident in my powers of reason, dismiss them as inevitable coincidence. Now, if there really is a God, and he's a prankster, that's funny.

    1. Re:No. by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      A matter of reason surveys the current state of a question and seeks to generate a testable hypothesis. Whether there is or is not a God, is entirely a domain of faith for a religion where the will of a supremely powerful being is to not be directly observable. The conjecture of whether there is or is not a Judeo-Christian God is unprovable.

      Everything is "unprovable" in the strictest sense of the word. For all you know, you're currently locked in a padded cell in an insane asylum, having a vivid delusion that you are reading this comment. You might not even be human -- what if you're a Baltaxian from the Zogar nebula having a bizarre dream about being a hairless ape? All you can prove is that you exist, via the famous conclusion "I think, therefore I am".

      So, sure, you can say that the matter of God's existence is "unprovable", and I won't argue with that. Everything is unprovable.

      However, in the real world, God's existence is every bit as questionable as the unicorns and leprechauns I mentioned earlier. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence of his existence -- which is itself sufficient to disbelieve in him -- not to mention a tremendous number of reasons to not believe.

      When you propose the existence of an invisible, incorporeal, undetectable-to-all-known-devices-and-creatures, all-powerful, all-knowing, laws-of-physics-defying creature who is smart enough to have created the ENTIRE UNIVERSE but is stupid enough to care about all the stupid little things (like whether or not you get a tattoo) that the Bible says he cares about, the burden of evidence is very much on you.

      I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Christians are the ones making the ridiculous claims, they are the ones who need to prove it. When I claim that the entire universe was in fact created by an all-powerful space duck with an insatiable appetite for spaghetti, then it's my turn to cough up some evidence.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    2. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace the word 'Big Bang' for your all-powerful space duck and then explain. Though if you don't believe that either then there won't be much point.

    3. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is if your grant the Christians, or whomever, their hypothesis of God. (Among those qualities are all-knowing, all-powerful, and wishes to remain hidden.) It's a circular argument, which is of course a lot suspicious, but not necessarily false. Ultimately to reason, or at least science, it's meaningless, you can't test that hypothesis, save perhaps when you die, and you don't get to bring information back from that event. We presume, since we're all good skeptics that such a hypothesis is likely to be false, and in most cases such a view will serve us well. But there is the possiblity that it might be true.

      Ultimately, I think faith, in whatever, is ment to be a kind of substitute for a sophisticated statistical argument for hope, and against the weaknesses of reason.

      If you trust in this magic bean to keep you going, take refuge, you'll eventually perservere and find your way from a life of dire struggle, and if you don't you'll die, which will actually be fine, since it's part of the plan, and there is a raging party going on all the time.

      The difference in God and Unicorns is the former requires belief without proof as part of getting to know Him. Unicorns just require virgins or at least Mia Sara.

      Christians do make a lot of stupid claims. But you're making a claim yourself. When they test their hypothesis, they "feel" presence of God, or at least say they do. But you and I, the skeptics, are precluded from that test by their hypothesis preventing confirmation *and* contradiction.

    4. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Big Bang is a testable hypothesis, and quite frankly we can reasonably discuss what form it took, but not if it was. The if of it is no longer in doubt. Not believing in the big bang isn't much different than not believing in the light coming from your computer monitor at this point.

      This of course does not preclude the existance of God, there's something to be said for the Bible as a metaphore. While Maxwell's equations are, no doubt, more useful and precise than "Let there be light" they do lack a certain something when it comes to telling people where they came from.

    5. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the universe is provably expanding then it's entirely logical to presume that it was previously much smaller (and as a consequence hotter). You are free to view a basic logical deduction such as this as a "belief" - and presumably therefore no more rational than "belief" in god . . . if that's your thing.

    6. Re:No. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Christians are the ones making the ridiculous claims, they are the ones who need to prove it. When I claim that the entire universe was in fact created by an all-powerful space duck with an insatiable appetite for spaghetti, then it's my turn to cough up some evidence.

      Well, it's obvious that the most fundamental questions about the universe remain unanswered to some people's satisfaction, mine included. The big bang may describe the first split second, but doesn't really explain anything other than there was nothing, and then all of the sudden there is something. And in the vaguest sense, it is somewhat hard to deny that it certainly seems like there may be a creator of some sort. So, in the most general sense, a religionist isn't all that crazy, imo.

      I don't fault the christians for thinking anything along this line of thought. What I do fault them for, is co-opting it. It's possible that the creator I am hypothesizing is their Satan... as possible as any other identity. But whenever science says something that might support such, even the slightest little tidbit, they jump all over it, claiming it as proof that their YWHW/Jehovah/Hallelujah is the creator being implied. Which is ridiculous.

      Even if I can, for the sake of the argument, accept that *a* god might exist, what makes them think that it is their own? Isn't more reasonable to suppose that if something like that exists, that there are many, rather than one? A universe that only has a single star, anywhere, is much more bizarre than our own with quadrillions of suns. And this is only a single issue.

      For me, it's not that there might be a supernatural/supreme being of some sort, but all the politicalesque propaganda that they insist go along with it. There might be only one "good" god, or one god that I should want anything to do with, but only one god, period? Sounds more like a football fanatic claiming his team is the only one.

    7. Re:No. by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative
      That's a trick.

      The Big Bang is a scientific model of the start of the universe. I could point out that it's a scientific theory that was created to explain observable facts, whereas God creating the universe doesn't explain anything. And if you start asking what created Big Bang, I'm afraid you're a bit behind the times there. The current conception just has space, and the space 'tilts' sideways and turns into time. (I don't pretend to understand how things can 'tilt' in no time, but the math works.)

      However, that's not really the point at all, you're trying to trick people, even if you don't realize it. It doesn't matter if the Big Bang is wrong...in fact, even since the Big Bang was proposed, serious professional scientists have claimed that theory is inaccurate and/or meaningless.

      It's not some end-all and be-all of science, it's nowhere near the level of General Relativity as a 'theory'. (Strictly speaking, there's not one theory there anyway, there are several.) Pretending it's some sort of religion for scientists is ignoring the fact a lot of them don't believe it, they just don't have anything better at the moment.

      But that's still not the point. The point is that the people claiming the Big Bang theory is correct are doing so because that's what the evidence looks like. They say 'It looks like the entire universe used to be in the same place...what the heck could that have looked liked, and what happened to it to make it go everywhere?' Whereas the people saying 'God did it' are just being lazy.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:No. by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Well, it's obvious that the most fundamental questions about the universe remain unanswered to some people's satisfaction, mine included. The big bang may describe the first split second, but doesn't really explain anything other than there was nothing, and then all of the sudden there is something. And in the vaguest sense, it is somewhat hard to deny that it certainly seems like there may be a creator of some sort. So, in the most general sense, a religionist isn't all that crazy, imo.

      Yes, it is crazy. There are two main reasons:

      A) It doesn't answer the question. How did the universe get here? God created it. Well, how did God get here? Ummm... well... he's just always been here. So what was he doing for the infinity of time before he decided to create the universe? Ummm... well... hrm.

      If the universe is so complex that it can't exist without a creator, then God is also so complex that he can't exist without a creator. If God could come into existence without help, then so could the universe.

      B) We've seen this before, and every other case has been wrong. How do volcanoes work? God (Hephaestus) makes them erupt. What is the sun? It's God (Ra). How does lightning work? They're God (Zeus) throwing lightning bolts that Hephaestus forged. Why do we get sick? God (Heiséi) makes us sick. Why does it rain? God (Mama Cocha) makes it rain.

      How was the universe made? God (Yahweh) made it.

      So, we've managed to prove that every other thing God supposedly does has a rational explanation. The only thing you have left is the origins of life and the universe, which I admit we don't have a rock-solid explanation for.

      So, which is more likely: that you're finally right for once and God did it (nevermind where God himself came from), or this will once again fall to the forces of reason?

      Furthermore, if you still think you're not crazy for believing it, I'd like you to do the following. Come up with a definition for the word "delusion" that includes all mental-illness-type-delusions but doesn't include religious beliefs.

      Amazingly enough, thousands of psychologists have tried to do just that, and there still isn't any such definition.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    9. Re:No. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Amazingly enough, alot of what you say can also be used against the big bang theory. Is it now also a religious delusion?

      No modern religion claims that god makes it rain. That religion was once used to explain things that could otherwise have been explained better only says something about how unwilling primitive people were to explore reasoning.

      But, if you insist on using that line of reasoning, isn't it only fair to subject science to the same thing? I mean, if Zeus is going to be responsible for lightning bolts (incorrect), then shouldn't we dig up all the early paleontological reconstructions and ridicule them? Oops, that dead guy thought that animals evolved simply because they decided mutate? And the other one thought that random mutations could possibly explain such rapid evolution?

      There is something more to the universe, than the cold lifeless mechanisms that some insist is all thats there. Even I can agree to that much.

      But you really shouldn't jump to conclusions. I'm not christian, muslim, or anything else. I'm wavering between atheist and agnostic. But I didn't forfeit any intuition, flexibility, or just plain common sense to be able to claim membership in those two clubs.

      Oh, btw. If you're definition of mental illness would include my previous post as a sympton, you're really wound too tight. Did Father Callahan molest you or something?

    10. Re:No. by adric · · Score: 1
      I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Christians are the ones making the ridiculous claims, they are the ones who need to prove it. When I claim that the entire universe was in fact created by an all-powerful space duck with an insatiable appetite for spaghetti, then it's my turn to cough up some evidence.
      You, sir, have just made my day! I hope you don't mind if I borrow that comparison. ;-)
      --
      not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
    11. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidence negates the required faith.

      People like you aren't helping the whole situation. You're just as intolerant as the bigoted Christians you argue against.

      I personally believe in God, and Jesus Christ. However, I also respect anyone's right to believe differently. Doesn't change the fact that I feel I'm right, for me, but that what I feel is right is indeed not right for everyone else.

      The reason we're in such a shithole of a world right now is primarily due to religious intolerance from ALL directions. Sometimes it seems like I'm the only person on this earth than actually has the common sense to respect others' belief systems.

      In short, those who rabidly argue against Christianity are just as much assholes as the ones they're arguing against. They don't feel people should have the right to choose their own beliefs.

    12. Re:No. by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Amazingly enough, alot of what you say can also be used against the big bang theory. Is it now also a religious delusion?

      When did I say that I support the big bang theory? In any case, the big bang theory is not a religion for many reasons, but most notably because it is falsifiable. It makes certain predictions, and you can test those predictions to see whether or not they hold true. You can prove it wrong, and come up with a theory that better explains the observed facts.

      None of those traits hold for religious beliefs, which are delusional in nature (not based on observations of the world and persist despite mounds of evidence against them).

      No modern religion claims that god makes it rain. That religion was once used to explain things that could otherwise have been explained better only says something about how unwilling primitive people were to explore reasoning.

      Wow. You have completely and utterly missed the point. I know that no modern religion claims God makes it rain. That is because we now understand the physical processes behind rain.

      My point was that as soon as we fully understand the physical processes behind something, religion is no longer able to claim "God did it". It has happened over and over again throughout history. This particular discussion -- creation -- is just one more example of "God did it" that will, like all the others, fall apart as soon as science manages to figure out exactly what really happened.

      But, if you insist on using that line of reasoning, isn't it only fair to subject science to the same thing? I mean, if Zeus is going to be responsible for lightning bolts (incorrect), then shouldn't we dig up all the early paleontological reconstructions and ridicule them? Oops, that dead guy thought that animals evolved simply because they decided mutate? And the other one thought that random mutations could possibly explain such rapid evolution?

      Absolutely. If science proposes something incorrect, then hell yes we should discard it and move on as soon as we realize it's incorrect. It has happened over and over again, and I'm sure that a lot of our currently-cherished scientific beliefs will likewise be demolished once we have a better explanation.

      See, that's the difference between science and religion. Scientists actively challenge our current understanding of the world, and are quick to propose (and test!) alternative explanations.

      Religions, on the other hand, are so damned convinced that they know the whole story that they ignore the last two thousand years of human advancement.

      Oh, btw. If you're definition of mental illness would include my previous post as a sympton, you're really wound too tight. Did Father Callahan molest you or something?

      My point was that religious beliefs are a delusion. It should be pretty scary to you that not even psychiatrists can find a meaningful distinction between religious delusions (a 'loving' God ruthlessly flooded the entire planet and murdered trillions of innocent animals, crackers turn to flesh in my mouth, you'll spend an eternity burning in hell for inserting your penis into another man) and the delusions of the truly insane (the CIA is controlling my mind via my radio).

      The only distinction we've been able to make so far is that the religious delusions are held by large numbers of people. These beliefs are still every bit as irrational and insane as the delusions held by the mentally ill.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    13. Re:No. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      My point was that religious beliefs are a delusion. It should be pretty scary to you that not even psychiatrists can find a meaningful distinction between religious delusions (a 'loving' God ruthlessly flooded the entire planet and murdered trillions of innocent animals, crackers turn to flesh in my mouth, you'll spend an eternity burning in hell for inserting your penis into another man) and the delusions of the truly insane (the CIA is controlling my mind via my radio).

      Nice of you to pick the craziest, most undefendable beliefs as an example. What do they call that, the strawman argument?

      Why don't you tell me why it's also just as crazy to forgive, and love one another, or that if we work hard and be good people that there may be a paradise waiting for us all? Those are pretty unrealistic also, are they delusions?

      Why is it that you, the smart atheist, have so much trouble discerning metaphor from literal truths, or so much difficulty seeing that rituals and tradition give people comfort, but that it's not the fundamental part of what might make religion a good thing?

      Seriously though, someone in early childhood really hurt you, didn't they. Shame, that.

    14. Re:No. by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Nice of you to pick the craziest, most undefendable beliefs as an example. What do they call that, the strawman argument?

      Not at all. A strawman argument is misrepresenting your opponent's argument in a weaker form, attacking the weakened form, and then claiming that you have defeated the argument.

      I admit that few people nowadays really believe in the miracle of transubstantiation, but the other two (the Great Flood and that homosexuality is a sin) are very much active beliefs held by millions of Christians. You may not personally believe either one -- and kudos to you if that is so -- but claiming that it's a straw man is disingenous.

      In fact, the homosexuality one in particular is one of the most important political issues on the table right now. I would say that the opposition to gay rights is largely religious in nature, and characterizing my statement as a straw man is very unfair.

      Why don't you tell me why it's also just as crazy to forgive, and love one another, or that if we work hard and be good people that there may be a paradise waiting for us all? Those are pretty unrealistic also, are they delusions?

      I take issue with the supernatural, illogical, and delusional beliefs specific to religions. The forgiveness and love you mention are not supernatural, illogical, or delusional, nor are they specific to religion. As an atheist, I no less believe in loving and forgiving my fellow man than you do. In fact, I would consider myself more forgiving than most of the Christians I have met. Your mileage may vary.

      Why is it that you, the smart atheist, have so much trouble discerning metaphor from literal truths, or so much difficulty seeing that rituals and tradition give people comfort, but that it's not the fundamental part of what might make religion a good thing?

      What makes you think I have trouble discerning metaphor? I know perfectly well that "This is my body" wasn't supposed to mean "This cracker is literally my flesh". That doesn't stop that from being the Catholic Church's official teaching, though, does it?

      Likewise, I know perfectly well that Leviticus is just a bunch of 2000-year-old rules that nobody should seriously be expected to follow today. And let me tell you, that must be a real comfort to the families of gay men who have been murdered in the name of God.

      You don't do these things, fine. I'm not against you, I'm against the entire establishment of religion, which has been responsible for more atrocities, murders, and genocides than any other force in history.

      Seriously though, someone in early childhood really hurt you, didn't they. Shame, that.

      I strongly oppose belief in the supernatural, so I must be damaged goods? Odd.

      No, I actually had a nice, perfectly normal childhood. No abuse, no molestation, no horrible experiences with religious nuts. I am happily married, well-adjusted, and successful. I have no psychological problems. I don't oppose religion because I was hurt, but rather because it is a dangerous delusion that has shamed, hurt, or killed millions of people.

      Incidentally, I am just as opposed to belief in alien abductions and unicorns. It's just that there aren't as many true believers of those delusions, so I don't get as much of an opportunity to debate about them.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  14. Well... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

    Maybe these Malaysians should be helping me build up metanet. They can't arrest you if they don't know who you are...

  15. Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since Jeff, the guy at risk, agrees that insulting Islam is a crime that should be punished. I wish upon him a brutal punishment. I know he wasn't the guy insulting that asscream of a religion. Hell, it wasn't even a religion being insulted, rather some goofey construct of ten principles derived from it the vast majority of which don't apply to anywhere in the muslim world. But if people like Jeff want to voice their unpopular opinions they need to learn to endure the presence of other people's unpopular, possibly highly offensive, and ignorant opinions too.

    And if Jeff needs to do some real hard time in a Malaysian prision because of an ironic twist of fate. There's no finer punishment for a hypocrite.

    Next time, maybe he'll stand up into the breach instead of being stuck there by a paper worse than the New York Post.

    And hey, if some yahoo posting one poorly worded, obscure comment on one poorly made (grey text on white and yellow backgrounds? WTF?) weblog can diminishes someone's God, it's a pretty crappy God. What a pussy.

    1. Re:Well.... by Otter · · Score: 1
      And hey, if some yahoo posting one poorly worded, obscure comment on one poorly made (grey text on white and yellow backgrounds? WTF?) weblog can diminishes someone's God, it's a pretty crappy God. What a pussy.

      I believe CmdrTaco subscribes to the same theological view: "Yes, God, people may have blasphemed against You on my website but anything posted in the IT or Games section shouldn't count."

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    2. Re:Well.... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful
      God can take care of himself.

      It is their own weak belief, that some 'humans' think needs defending through coersion.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  16. This is appalling by Daedala · · Score: 1

    ...on two counts. One, that negative comments about Islam (or Christianity, or Republicans, or Democrats) could be considered a crime, and two, that they arrested someone who didn't actually make them. I don't know whether to hope they find the person who made the comments or not. I suppose that putting into law the idea that you are responsible for users' actions might be worse than suppressing free speech.

    --
    What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
  17. well, think of it this way by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

    While there certainly have been Christian, et al, terrorists, they pale in significance by orders of magnitude to those of Islam. No bigotry in this statement, just facts.

    Islam is a much younger religion than most, Christianity, Judaism, etc. Islam's current state and that of most other religions cannot be compared accurately; the others have had time to streamline themselves in a way that Islam has not yet. i.e. it's heading into an age of reform that happened several hundred years ago in Christianity and a millenia ago in Judaism.

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    1. Re:well, think of it this way by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      You have a good point and you're absolutely right. However, in the 21st century how do we get past this stage without someone having to (or wanting to) annihilate the other?

      When the state-of-the-art is a sword or a crossbow, it's one issue, but with weapons of mass destruction, it's a much scarier prospect.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  18. Watch out Taco... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You won't want to visit Malayasia after this post:

    FUCK ISLAM! FUCK MOHAMMED! FUCK THE PROPHET! FUCK THEM ALL TO HELL!

    Ahhh... That felt better. But seriously, Islam is different in most other world religions in that it has managed to codify into its religion barbarism left over from the Dark Ages, such as clitorectomies, etc, etc.

  19. Faith vs Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why this distinction between beliefs based on "faith" and based on "reason"? Faith is not always blind. I have faith in my wife. Why? Because she has demonstrated to me in many ways that she is a faithful woman who loves me. Though we're not together during the business day, don't you think it is reasonable for me to trust her fidelity during the day, far less reasonable for me to suspect her of betraying me (at least in the absence of very serious evidence)?

    I hope you can see that faith can be reasonable.

    Secondly, you wanted some evidence to be submitted about God. There are two kinds of evidence recognised by Christians: what can be seen in nature; and what has been specifically revealed by God in history.

    Have you ever asked the questions that Science can't answer? Empiricism can observe the material world, and it can even propose laws which seem to describe the way the universe works. But it cannot say where these laws come from, or why they are so. Isn't it beautiful and elegant that such simple laws can describe such complexity? Isn't it still so unlikely, even given such laws, that they would produce you?

    Have you ever investigated the historical man Jesus Christ, and assessed his claims and the claims of his followers? Reading the new testament of the bible is a good start: it's not very long, and you can't claim lack of evidence without having read it. It's also worth looking at historical analyses of it.

    1. Re:Faith vs Reason by egomaniac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why this distinction between beliefs based on "faith" and based on "reason"? Faith is not always blind. I have faith in my wife. Why? Because she has demonstrated to me in many ways that she is a faithful woman who loves me. Though we're not together during the business day, don't you think it is reasonable for me to trust her fidelity during the day, far less reasonable for me to suspect her of betraying me (at least in the absence of very serious evidence)?

      The word "faith" has a number of different definitions; you are confusing the argument by using a different one than I am. You have evidence of your wife's faithfulness -- she has always been faithful to you in your presence, has professed her love to you on many occasions, and has done many other things to give you reason to believe in her faithfulness. There is no such evidence of the existence of God, so any belief in him must be a different sort of faith than what you describe.

      I hope you can see that faith can be reasonable.

      If it's reasonable (based on rational fact and evidence), it's not "faith" as generally defined in religious discussions.

      Secondly, you wanted some evidence to be submitted about God. There are two kinds of evidence recognised by Christians: what can be seen in nature; and what has been specifically revealed by God in history.

      I submit that there is nothing in nature which indicates the existence of God, nor has God at any point revealed his existence. I challenge you to submit evidence to the contrary.

      Have you ever asked the questions that Science can't answer?

      Of course. No one is claiming that science has all the answers.

      Empiricism can observe the material world, and it can even propose laws which seem to describe the way the universe works. But it cannot say where these laws come from, or why they are so.

      True. However, God doesn't make the situation any better.

      Science: Question: Why does [system A] behave in [behavior B] fashion? Answer: We don't know.

      Religion: Question: Why does [system A] behave in [behavior B] fashion? Answer: God wants it to work that way. Question: Why? Answer: We don't know.

      All you've done is introduced one more unknowable thing and abstracted the answer one more step away.

      Isn't it beautiful and elegant that such simple laws can describe such complexity? Isn't it still so unlikely, even given such laws, that they would produce you?

      First, nobody has any idea how likely or unlikely it is -- we don't understand the processes that gave rise to life (and when we do, it will have been science, not religion, that answered the question). Second, even if it's fantastically unlikely, what does that have to do with anything? In a universe with fifty billion stars in each of a hundred trillion galaxies, the fact that something is "unlikely" still leaves room for it to happen trillions of times. And all we need is for it to have happened once -- and it obviously did, since here we are.

      Have you ever investigated the historical man Jesus Christ, and assessed his claims and the claims of his followers? Reading the new testament of the bible is a good start: it's not very long, and you can't claim lack of evidence without having read it. It's also worth looking at historical analyses of it.

      The historical man Jesus Christ is known from exactly four documents: the four Gospels. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no other known documents claiming first-hand knowledge of the man.

      Tell me something: if I and three of my friends wrote stories claiming that we had seen a man perform great miracles, claim to be the son of Allah, and endorse Islam as the one true path, would you instantly trust me, discard all other religions, and follow Islam?

      That is exactly what you done. Replace "Allah" with "God" and "Islam" with "Christianity" and you ha

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    2. Re:Faith vs Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize that for you to have the right to believe (or not believe) in the way that suits you, you must respect the fact that other people will not agree with you, and will choose something else?

      The anti-religious people are becoming that which they once hated - they want to try to force their views on everyone else, only they purport to do it through logic.

      If Christians should not be able to believe in God, then you also have no right to choose your own beliefs.

      If there is a $DEITY, he/she/it will be most favorable towards those who were tolerant of other beliefs. And if there is no $DEITY, then it won't matter anyway.

    3. Re:Faith vs Reason by hopemafia · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think the worst mistake religious people make is trying to rationalize their religious convictions. Christianity is a religion of a personal relationship with God...so unless God reveals himself to a person no amount of shouting and Bible thumping or rational argument is going to convert an unbeliever. And usually, it just ends up making the Christian look rude or foolish.

      However, regarding:
      "There is no such evidence of the existence of God, so any belief in him must be a different sort of faith than what you describe."

      I would like to point out that Christians have seen exactly such evidence, in their personal relationship with God and God's provision for them during their lives...and that's what makes them Christians.

      Unless you're omniscient, there are things in the universe that you haven't personally witnessed. It takes some degree of faith to believe in anything. Believing in Antarctica based on the accounts and pictures of those who have been there doesn't take much faith...believing in Christianity based only on the words and deeds of Christians and on the Bible takes a lot of faith...believing in Christianity when God has revealed himself to you personally doesn't take as much faith.

      Finally, regarding:
      "The historical man Jesus Christ is known from exactly four documents: the four Gospels. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no other known documents claiming first-hand knowledge of the man."

      Just to use the most common example: How many first hand accounts are there of the Big Bang? I bet it's less than four.... Obviously there was something to it, given that many early Christians died for their beliefs. If you and your three friends wrote your stories, and I arrested you and told you to recant or die, would you die for your story if it was a lie? So, either the majority of early Christians were insane, or they had some real reason to believe what they wrote. Now, has the Bible changed some over time...probably...I've played the human telephone game enough to know we can't keep our stories straight.... People who read the Bible literally, word for word, are as foolish as those who discount it as complete fiction.

      --
      If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
  20. Re:Read This Malaysia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck spelling!

  21. Wait till they come for Taco by eraserewind · · Score: 1

    Given the regularity with which copyrighted articles are posted as comments on slashdot, it's surely only a matter of time before someone takes an action against the editors. Should slashdot editors be held responsible for their users' comments in the manner of this blogger?

  22. This is the Islamic equivalent of the Puritans by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A Movement Bred in the Isolation of the Desert
    by Tarek Heggy

    Here's the complete series:

    1. The Big Change in Islamic Societies
    2. Muslims & The Clash of Civilizations
    3. The Mentality of Violence... and the Games Nations Play!
    4. A Movement Bred in the Isolation of the Desert
    5. The Fall of the Oppressors and the Emergence of the Sword
    6. The Crisis Facing Non-Wahabbi Islam

    The man who founded Wahhabism was not a theologian but a proselyter who was determined to convert the faithful to his harsh brand of Islam. Intellectually close to the dialectical Islamic theologians who asserted the primacy of tradition (naql) over reason (aql), Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab was a disciple of ibn-Taymiyah, a strict traditionalist who allowed little scope for reason or independent thinking. He was also a product of his geographical environment, a remote outpost of history.

    Unlike Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, where ancient civilizations had flourished and made their mark on human history, or places like Dubai and Hijaz, which lay on trade routes and dealt extensively with the outside world, the desert of Najd in the Eastern Province of what is now Saudi Arabia had no civilization to speak of before Islam. Nor did it ever become a cultural centre like the capitals of the Caliphate, Medina, Damascus and Baghdad. Thanks to its arid, barren landscape, Najd remained a cultural backwater, its sole contribution to the arts a traditional form of poetry that spoke of narrow tribal matters.

    The harsh and unforgiving environment in which the Najdis lived explains why Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab found a receptive audience for the equally harsh and unforgiving brand of Islam he preached. The same environment that produced the founder of Wahhabism later produced the radical Ikhwan movement which challenged the authority of King Abdul Aziz ibn-Saud. In the nineteen twenties, the king took on the Ikhwan, who were openly accusing him of deviating from the true faith. When he returned to Riyadh after joining Hijaz to his kingdom, the Ikhwan said he had left on a camel and come back in an American car!

    This was just one of many clashes between the movement and the king over such issues as whether the radio was sinful or the telephone an invention of the devil, in short, over any of the fruits of modernity which threatened their fundamentalist vision of the world. It is a vision that can only be understood by studying what is known as the secret sects of Islam (radical fringe movements that never became part of mainstream Islam), as well as the message of Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab, the product of many factors, including the sociological and geopolitical environment of the deserts of Najd.

    These factors allowed the Wahhabis, after they invaded Hijaz, to impose their austere understanding of religion throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Among other things, they banned headstones and any structures identifying burial sites, insisting on unmarked graves flush with the land. They combated Sufism in Mecca and elsewhere as contrary to the teachings of Islam. They even entered into an armed clash with the Egyptian mahmil, a splendidly decorated litter on which the Egyptians sent a new cover for the Ka'bah every year. The mahmil ceremony was a merry occasion celebrated by the Egyptians with their traditional love of music, dancing and revelry. For the Najdis, who had launched their puritanical revival movement to purge Islam of what they saw as deviations from the straight and true path of orthodoxy, such unseemly displays of levity could not be tolerated.

    What I want to cast light on here i

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  23. country's draconian law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :allows a person to be detained without trial if he is thought to threaten "national security":

    Isn't that something in the Patriot Act or related laws?

    indefinitely too, and the cops can even deny holding him.

  24. The Irony of it all ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just really sucks that speaking your mind on a blog IN the comments section _could_ get you jailed up without trial in Malaysia.

    Great way for forcing people to shut up about what the politicians and religious radicals do not want to hear.

    The irony of it all is that jeffooi.com has the slogan "Thinking allowed, thinking aloud" written on that blog, and his audience - the insulting commentor nicked "Anwar" did just that.

    Nyeh, I believe JeffOoi should just delete all of "Anwar's" IP addresses and delete all the evidences of "Anwar" to save "Anwar" from unjustified persecution. Afterall, you're encouraging people to speak out, right?

  25. Online Petition by hspace · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you're Malaysian and are aware of the facts of the matter, please take 1 min to sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/jeffooi/petition.htm l

    1. Re:Online Petition by hspace · · Score: 1

      That should be .html . Correct link also here

    2. Re:Online Petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a nice thought but why is a petition necessary or even useful in this regard?

      The real issues here are -

      1) Why are four national dailies owned by the same media group mis-representing the facts of the incident and attempting to place the blame on the blogger for the derogatory comments posted by someone else on the blog? Is is just bad journalism by all four dailies or someone exercising his power and influence in a personal vendetta?

      2) Why do we have Government officials and politicians who persist in shooting off their mouths before knowing the facts and making threats?

      The best way to deal with this is to disseminate the facts as widely as possible and shine a bright spotlight on this little storm in a teacup and watch all the cockcroaches scuttle away into the darkness.

      Let's see whether the Government lives up to its promise of no censorship of the internet.

    3. Re:Online Petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The online petition was in a small way an outlet for people to express their moral support for Jeff.

      The blogger in question was facing the threat of having the brunt of the government bear down not only on his site, but his life as well. One man alone against an all-powerful bureaucracy.

      This is the same bureaucracy that sacked its second-most powerful man, the Deputy Prime Minister, on a very flimsy and ludicrous *sodomy* charge.

      A lot of politicians were playing the issue to the hilt, and jailing Jeff would be a show of force and to gain political mileage.

      Jeff has since expressed his appreciation for the petition and the moral boost it helped give him to face the uncertainty of possible incarceration.

      The petition also was an outlet for people, esp those without blogs, to express their support. Sometimes, man, all you need is a lift to get you through.

  26. Some facts to clarify the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole incident started when Malaysia Malay language newspaper "Berita Harian" inappropriate held jeffooi responsibility to a commenters comments while Jeffooi blog about "money politics" issue in Malaysia
    http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/2004/10/screenshot s_vil.php

    "Berita Harian" is a subsidiaries of the huge Malaysia media group NSTP(New Strait Time Press). Although NSTP is a public listed company, more than 50% shares of NSTP are held by the incumbant political party.

    OTH, the online Malaysia paper, Malaysiakini (www.malaysiakini.com) faced the same fates in year 2002, where the authority held Malaysiakini responsibility to 3rd party comments pubish by Malaysiakini. Malaysia police confiscate 19 computers from Malaysiakini after a report from the incumbant political party members.

    The chronology of the Malaysiakini is available here
    http://pgoh.free.fr/digital_servers.html

  27. Munch much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tasty... a bit salty.

  28. Yep. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    The "funny" part is that it is a hangover from British rule.

    The fierce Malaysian freedom fighters did not deem necessary to get rid of it once independence was attained.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  29. This is God speaking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone want a totally free iPod?

    Also, for all you islamic terroists in it for the virgins... We are running short of virgins up here. Could you guys tone it down for a couple of years so I can build up my supply again? I am being nice and asking, don't make me shift my attention from Florida.

  30. He deserves it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look into the history of Jeff Ooi and his websites, you'll realise he is no matyr. His forums have often been the arena of fighting matches he has himself instigated.

  31. Martyr he is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Naturally Muslims in Malaysia and elsewhere will not be happy with the comments. But that is not the point.

    Malaysia is a country where though freedom of speech is allowed, it is within limits. I believe that whether the comments were leveled against Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Chinese, Malays, Indians, or any of the races or religions, the principle is still the same - we do not want to start a war or violent eruptions of any kind. I doubt we are ready for that level of commentary as of yet, and I am sure that if they were directed towards any of the races or religions, the response would be the same.

    Secondly, he has to be held accountable because though he did not post the content, he is the administrator who will vett and censor the website. Who is to decide the content but him?

    Jeff Ooi is not a very respectable individual and is known to rabble rouse and insinuate for the sake of self glorification. Not many people take him very seriously because behind his guise for "patriotism" he is an activist waiting for personal profit. He really does not care for much but himself.

    On a hearsay level, he is known to slander politicians but lay off when he gets his way.

    On the issue of censorship, maybe some of you will find this interesting... Jeff Ooi has allowed people to threaten rape and murder on his mirror site.

    Then he supposedly suppressed the logs of death and rape threats levelled towards forum members on his mirror website, refusing to cooperate and hand them over to the authorities, and even throwing those threatened out after labelling them troublemakers.

    It is shocking because a lot of what he leveled was quite racist and sexist and purely manipulative. He has made headlines once before:

    http://forum.hackinthebox.org/viewtopic.php?t=49 68

    Not very patriotic. Quite indecent in fact. It is hard for me and a lot of people to believe that this man is working for the sole purpose of debating to improve the state of the nation or the world.

    - Shamsul

    1. Re:Martyr he is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story has nothing to do whether the guy is a martyr or not. It's very simple: he owns a blog. someone comments in his blog. someone else thinks that comment is against "national security" interests. and so that someone else wants the blogger (and not the commenter) punished. for more on this, do read this article from the Reporters Sans Frontiers group: Authorities harass a blogger. It should also be pointed out now that the newspapers and govt officials have gone silent over this issue. I'm sure that this story being featured in slashdot has something to do with that ;)

  32. Quit. Period. by IrnWrk · · Score: 1

    Religion is at best a crutch, at worst a disease. Islam or Christianity is a sham. Believe in what makes your life worth living, when what you do is worthless, change your belief or die. Force is crude and barbaric. Forcing a religion is cruel and barbaric. Judaism, Islam and Christianity were born of a time when people began to question their own existance and had the leisure to do it. To hell with them all. Good deeds, not good words! Peace and harmony begins with a state of mind, not a state.

  33. FUCK ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad I don't live in malaysia