Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Bans "Allah" in Screen Names
szembek writes "According to The Register it seems that Yahoo! is banning the use of the string "Allah" in all screen names. The issue apparently became apparent when Linda Callahan attempted to use her surname in her screen name. The following link has an interesting list of terms that Yahoo does allow, and ones they don't."
...slashdot hasn't!
I really hope that offended someone in Denmark.
Is apparently allowed though.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Is it just me, or is this turning out to be censorship day?
Why is the name of Allah banned while the use of the god of other religions is not? Who should feel slighted? Muslims or others?
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
to people who already have accounts with these names? After 9/11 I remember them popping up a lot in chat rooms.
So you're telling me I can't use my "mallaholic" screenname?
Nuts to you, Yahoo!
Yes, I know they're a business and can make their own rules (within some common sense boundaries), but it's still sad to see them giving in to this sort of crap. For fear or profit, I don't know, but it's still ridiculous.
I've run into problems with my last name ("Marcum") due to the last three characters.
It's still not as bad as Blizzard's, filtering out words like "basement".
Ignoring the whole political issue of it, if they are going to filter a string, they should at least allow common legit strings that it is a substring of.
Here we go again, Good thing Yahoo doesn't have embassies to torch. :)
I hear its one of the most common male names in the world. Its a tradition to give names from the early particpants in the religion.
Let's look at the article
I guess Yahoo is trying to avoid the trolls and hatemongers. You can't have a screenname "I<3Osama," but you can have a name with Jesus in it. I suppose that makes sense from a certain standpoint, Jesus is a popular hispanic name (but so is Osama and Usama as a male name in the Arabic world).
I could have iHeartJesus, but not iLoveAllah?
I think the entire world should start plastering images of Mohammad everywhere. Drown them in it until they realize they need to practice their religion however they want and leave the rest of the world out of it.
Not that Europe is much better, as my current sig shows. People bitch about the US and Bush, but at least Yahoo is a private corporation making this decision.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Or do Yahoo fear losing revenue from Muslim countries...or do they fear a bomb?
Why I don't bother with Yahoo anymore. First it was one of their earlier versions of messenger tearing up my system, then it was yahoo messenger needxing ActiveX enabled to be 'fully functional' and now they're not allowing certain screen names. You know, I could understand if the name was something like 'childfucker' or something equally fucked up, but just making a string that bans any name with 'allah' spelled out consecutively anywhere within the screen name is just outrageous.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
ConsultingFair.com
My buddy Bob Callahan must be pissed!
(I have to admit, I dont use yahoo for anything, really... This is assuming things like yahoo messenger etc, allow for avatars). I guess you'll just have to use offensive cartoons instead... even though according to that list, the name mohammad is allowed. Man... isn't that like the most popular name in the world? They should ban that too :)
-FL
The whole point of writing articles like this is so people WILL stop using their services. If no one bitched, most people wouldn't know about it.
What about Microsoft or Google, do they have the same sort of list?
FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
Hey, let's be fair. He got betrothed to Aisha when she was six, but waited until she was nine to actually tie the knot. Come on, the guy's got some standards!
This would not be considered offensive in Islam the same way the depiction of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) would... it is certainly inappropriate but I am not sure that banning screen names of people who want to be called ALLAHIN06 is that big of a deal.
I can only think you're referring to Islam's prophet Muhammad. If so, I'm offended because you're just making accusations up.
Bisexual, eh? That's a new one. Sorry, no dice. Muhammad, peace be upon him, definitely wasn't bisexual. He had been married over 9 times! And as for pedophile, yes he had a wife under the age of 18, but according to the Society of the 7th century, a person wasn't an adult until he or she went through puberty, and she was over that age.
They also have been considering banning the demigod 'Banjo's name as well, to discourage it from gaining any more ridiculous followers.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I read this article yesterday, and it's sad, really, that nazipedophilesodomyisgreat@yahoo.com is allowed, but nancycallahan@yahoo.com is not. It's an example of an idea that probably started as a noble concern. (I would imagine that someone tried to sign up for deathtoallah@yahoo.com in order to troll on a forum somewhere.) But in the processm you come up with something that is really unsolvable. The solution here seems to be that you ban the 7 naughty words (as determined by the FCC) throw in a couple obvious ones (administrator, security, etc.) and leave it at that. If you try to ban certain words, there is way too much grey area. Do you ban the word breast? How about the Yahoo ID breastcancerawareness or chickenbreast? There are just a few areas in life where a couple simple rules won't solve the problem. I am well aware that even banning the 7 naughty words isn't enough, (I could sign up for fuuckme@yahoo.com, and people would understand what I'm getting at.) but that's really as far as you can take it.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
This is NOT your personal war! Those people have rights!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Sad part of Yahoo! (got to remember the exclamation point!) buckling under like most of the western media over Mohammed cartoons is that it shows to terrorists and their lackeys is that terror as a political tools works. It's not kooky right wing christians that are the biggest threat to our freedom of speech. It's fundamentalist Islam that seeks to regulate western speech with threats of violence from the middle east.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
So... no challah for the chosen people at Yahoo?
I'll break bread elsewhere, thanks.
Developers: We can use your help.
God Damn it!
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
Much as I might think the original post was logically flawed and offensive (and it was), your rebuttal isn't much better on the logic front. How does being married prevent someone from being bisexual? I could see the logic if he were being accused of homosexuality, but there's nothing to stop a bisexual getting half their fun within wedlock. :)
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
that a "certain sensitive name" wasn't simply
e
or there would be *real* trouble.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
More like a wife under the age of ten.
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Urwa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Sahih Bukhari 8:151, Narrated 'Aisha: "I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet , and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
This coming on the heels of Yahoo! begging the US Govt not to censor the internet? Gold.
s orship_statement/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/14/yahoo_cen
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
for the fact that "they" represent a larger portion of "the entire world" than we do.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
...when they banned the term "breast" in all their forums in an a misguided attempt to keep their service as family-friendly as possible. The result was that all the members of a breast cancer support forum had to suddenly start referring to themselves as survivors of "hooter cancer" until AOL finally realized they had f*cked up pretty badly on this one.
Sounds like the guy who created/designed the username filter for Yahoo was hired right out of college with little or no real-world experience, or at least no imagination whatsoever...
That only images of the Prophet were not allowed, but writing his name was OK.
First China bows to the chinese dicatorship, now Yahoo! tries to out-Islam the islamists...
I guess Bill Gates is not so evil after all.
No Allahu Akbar anymore? It's sad.
Per Aspera Ad Astra.
Yahoo and other companies don't publish (or if they do, make readily available) a list of the strings they filter. I've got no problem with them filtering usernames--their servers, their money, their right--but it troubles me that they make it some kind of secret.
Rather than "not available" they SHOULD have simply told her "We're sorry, but your requested username contains the string "allah" which is currently prohibited," and provide a link for more details on WHY that particular string is prohibited.
If it were my service, I'd take it a step further and provide people a way to request an exception. For example, if "Allah" is banned and Mrs. Callahan writes in to explain that it's just part of her name, you add an exception to the rule if "allah" is preceded by "c" and followed by "an".
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
I swear, they have the utmost respect for other religions and always live the higher standard everyday. Their media couldn't possibly be one of the most hateful in the world.
One editor from a small time newspaper half the world away from the center of the Muslim world published a handful of political/religious satire comics and as a result there have been riots, deaths, injuries, murders, threats, violence, and property damage.
Can you imagine what might happen if Yahoo allowed email addresses like "AllahSucks@yahoo.com" or "GodKicksAllahsButt" or some other drivel...
-Rick
PS: For the record, I'm agnostic and I think the lot of you (religious fanatics) are wackjobs. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or other whys.
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Putting aside the debate of filtering some completely subjective list of "banned" words, how come companies chock full of techies can't write a simple secondary accept filter to deal with exceptions caught in the first filter? Really, the list of names that include the word "allah" can't be that large.
... || ...)
if(strstr("allah", screenName)) {
if(strcmp("Callahan", screenName) == NULL ||
return true;
return false;
}
else if(...) {
}
Remonds me of when AOL wouldn't allow anybod living in Scunthorpe to register their with their correct addresses due to unfortunate filtering, and the second through fifth letters of the town's name.
Eventually they came to their senses.
My Heart Is A Flower
Yahoo should ban the use of "Mohammed" (and variants) as well, since obviously it is insulting to Muslims when every Dick and Harry can roam the internet abusing such a honored name.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
If Yahoo actually cared about both the content of user names and the users, it could simply flag all new usernames for review, perhaps require that the name is approved by a reviewer before use? The vast majority of names could be passed in literally one second; you could send a digest of 100 prospective screen names to operators and have them filter out any actually offensive ones in under 60 seconds, definitely. I don't think any legitimate users would mind waiting a few hours (probably much less) for an account to be first-time activated.
Then again, what with the way things are going recently, I'm not sure I want underpaid Yahoo goons deciding what counts as offensive...
My, that was a yummy potato!
Of course, Allah is God and Mohammed the Prophet...
how about 4114h? LLH ALL/-\|-| etc?
You can't handle the truth.
So the war on terrorism now includes the war on these 5 letters of the alphabet placed in a specific order: a l l a h ?
Strange, why is AOL fighting terrorism? Is AOL=FBI?
What is next, banning all books that have the world ALLAH in them?
You can't handle the truth.
Life was simpler when street crooks and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. were the bad guys, and our heroes always won.
sigs, as if you care.
You're absolutely right. I propose that sysadmins in the modern world start blackholing Muslim nations. It's clear that as a people, they have no respect for basic human rights or any semblance of free speech. Why should the modern world have to tiptoe around these assholes? I know that I'm certainly not. I'll be spending some time blackholing them from our tiny, insignificant router.
I don't respond to AC's.
How long until Yahoo only allows numbers like ICQ... but without the number 6?
-- $G
I consider it a completely irony that Islam is supposed to be a religon of peace and tolerance. Someone decides to write a dumb cartoon and the Muslim world gets upset. Muslims are always getting upset about something. Threatening death, riots, bombings, etc... And most of the world reacts to try and set things right to appease the Muslim masses Someone writes,critizes or illustrates something about bad about Christianity, people may get upset but the world doesn't do a damn thing. What's wrong with this picture? So now we have to make the world more "Allah" friendly. I find this to be a bug joke on Yahoo's part. Muslims want the world to change for them but refuses to adapt in any way shape or form. No way in fucking hell I'll ever sport an Arab type beard or have my wife wear a buka. I think perhaps the Muslims should get thier collective heads out of their medieval asses and perhaps modernize thier thinking and grow thicker skins.... Peaceful and tolerant religon my ass...
Ugh .. get a new job.. I'm not sure I could stand "security" like that.. I'd spend my entire day working to get around it.. :)
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
"What's so dope about skeet? White people don't know what it means yet... When they figure it out, they're going to be like, 'My God, what have we done?!'"
This is similar to why American newspapers won't publish the Danish Jyllands-Posten "Mohammed" cartoons, and why American TV networks won't show them. To that end, here's some insightful commentary by DailyPundit commenter "Jack" on this issue (as quoted in this thread):
And Yahoo! appears to be falling over themselves to do likewise.Just remember the famous quote from Strictly Ballroom, Yahoo!: "A life lived in fear is a life half-lived."
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Yeah this is chicken (how do I come up with them eh) by Yahoo but understandable. Muslims have no sense of humor (dutch free newspaper 'metro' stated on monday that more then half of westerners believe this so it must be true) so what are you to do?
Either you try not to offend people with extremely long toes or you risk becoming part of a holy war. Well or you simply block access from any muslim country. But that ain't good business.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Matthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Jehovah".
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Jehovah" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Stoner: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Stoner: Well you did say "Jehovah. "
[Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]
Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Jehovah. "
[Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]
PHP
Market forces rule.
Only in the textbooks. Real life is more complicated than that and does contain quite a huge number of forces that the various market theories exclude.
Remember: The market theories, just like newtonian mechanics, are approximations. Sometimes darn good ones, sometimes (under other conditions) lousy. This isn't religion and the word of the textbook isn't The Truth(tm).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Sounds like the guy who created/designed the username filter for Yahoo was hired right out of college with little or no real-world experience, or at least no imagination whatsoever...
As I think we've all learned long since, in this arms race the trolls and spammers of the world always eventually show more imagination and perseverence than the filter writers. I'm pretty sure I know how to write "A11ah." Have they thought of that one yet?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
But the content indicated s/he wasn't entirely clueless. Congratulations!
Karma is going to burn tonight!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I get the impression when a name cant be said anymore, whether a religious or celebrity, then people start inventing euphemisms. For example, That is Not Named, The Founder, etc. Sometimes even these become sacred, e.g. the Hebrew tetragram, short for I AM WHO AM.
He said it again!
Interesting how they allow usama (Bin Laden's REAL name) but not osama (the common mis-spelling).
Oh all the Muslim-bashers and Islamophobes are going to come out of the woodwork
And so will all the dhimmis.
I am a gay man and an atheist who has no intention of following any superstitious belief, Islam included.
The penalty for homosexuality under Shari'a (Islamic law) is death. I learned this from a discussion I had with a muslim from whyislam.org.
I am also an adoptive parent. Shari'a does not recognize adoptive parents. I learned this from the same discussion.
It is permittable for a Muslim to lie to a Kuffar (unbeliever). This is called taqiyya.
The belief that "Islam will dominate the world" is a mainstream belief in Islam. Not an extremist belief, a mainstream belief.
When the editor of Southern Voice (a gay newspaper in the Southeast USA) traveled to Amsterdam, supposedly a "liberal" city, he was gay-bashed and suffered injuries. The perpetrators? Muslims who were following their religious beliefs.
So when you start accusing people like me of having "islamophobic" sentiments, I have to agree and indicate to you that your accusation sounds a lot like, "She deserved to be raped. Didn't you see the skirt she was wearing?"
There are legitimate reasons for both fearing and resisting Islam. The hatred of freedom of expression, the denigration of gays and women, the 7th-century mindset, the second-class status imposed on non-Muslims (dhimmis), and the punitive justice system are all elements of mainstream (NOT "extremist") Islam that need to be discussed, exposed, and resisted. Not apologized for and certainly not defended in the name of "multiculturalism" or anything else!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The way this discussion is going I think Slashdot needs a new category with this motto:
Pews for Kurds: Sacrilege that Batters
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I don't recall a single incident ever in the history of the world where "radical Islam" killed someone named Callahan because the letters a l l a h appear in the name. Moreover, I've never seen evidence that any major company has ever been threatened for allowing someone named Callahan to go by their family name.
It's fun to bring up the spectre of radical Islam in every facet of modern society, but the facts don't support the notion that Yahoo would be placing itself at any danger in this case.
In fact, there are more than a few Muslim names which include those five letters in order, so if anything, Yahoo's setting itself up to look like they're discriminating against Muslims with this filter.
Try telling some girl named Jamallah Ali that her name can't be used on Yahoo because it's got a religious term in it, and see how she feels when her nextdoor neighbor and former NBA player God Shammgod gets in no questions asked.
-1 Terrorbait
Christians don't threaten death to company executives or members of the press if they disagree with their opinions.
You don't know anything about US abortion clinics do you?
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Is there any doubt that we have lost the war on terror? should we even bother fighting it anymore? We repeatedly show these extremist nutcases that they can get whatever it is they want by terrorizing us. Every article about these ridiculous cartoons on CNN.com ends with a disclaimer: CNN has chosen not to reprint the cartoons out of repect for Islam when all I can read is CNN has chosen not to reprint the cartoons out of fear of getting firebombed proof that we have lost: Yeah, Osama may be on the run in remote areas of Pakistan & Afghanistan, but it takes me 40 mins to get through security at the airport, and I have to have my personal belongings searched to ride the subway.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
I seriously doubt that terrorist organizations consider the Yahoo screen name issue a victory. After a full day of sending lackeys out to blow themselves up, what Islamic terrorist doesn't want to kick back on Yahoo and shoot the breeze with AllahIsGreat and ILoveAllah? Now they'll have to switch to MSN.
If Yahoo were to ban the use of "Jesus" in screen names then you'd see some outrage from those "kooky right wing christians". (It's a war on Jesus! We're all being persecuted!) People like you would blame it on western media bowing to Islamic extremism.
While debateable, it is unlikely. All evidence for it seems to be sourced from one guy, who wrote about it many decades after the fact, when he was known to be senile. However, some people prefer to ignore the much stronger contradictory evidence and focus on the writings of a senile old man because it validates their own personal world-view.
From wikipedia:
Hi, Its really interesting. I tried it out and found that really yahoo is banning "allah" string in its registratiion. I dont know what to comment on this but yahoo could be in danger. We all have seen the consequences of this kind of activities.
For now I'll continue to use Yahoo mail because of the free email services I can access at work, they're the lesser of the two evils (Hotmail being the other - I don't care if they allow me to use names like Allah, their interface is crap).
That do stupid things like compare Abortion clinics to cartoons.
While the Christian nuts are also, well nutty, WE KNOW THAT.
So what was your point? To demonstrate that you find equivalency between a group that violently protests what they percieve as murder (I disagree, and think they're nuts) and a group the violenty protests WOMEN'S RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, and fucking CARTOONS.
Get some fucking perspective.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Time to get a backup server in Denmark...
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Lots of arabic names have that sting in them. So people can't use their names now? Stupid of Yahoo to do that. Yet another insult as some might take it.
Allah is just "God" in Arabic. It is the same God as the Christian God. My parents are Christians from Iraq, and they use the word Allah in regards to our Christian God. It is the same God we worship since our ancestors converting to Christianity around 2000 years ago in that area. I always see people confusing "Allah" as some other deity, which is wrong.
your base belong to us.
I consider it a completely irony that Islam is supposed to be a religon of peace and tolerance. Someone decides to write a dumb cartoon and the Muslim world gets upset.
I consider it sad that even on a self proclaimed site for "nerds" some people insist on describing the actions of a few people as "the muslim world."
Muslims are always getting upset about something. Threatening death, riots, bombings, etc...
And then they insist on making prejudicial remarks, about what "muslims" are always doing. You might as well say, "christians are always bombing foreign cities. We should ban the religion."
Christianity, people may get upset but the world doesn't do a damn thing. What's wrong with this picture?
Your ignorance. When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual? I seem to recall a mass murder a few weeks ago. How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?
Muslims want the world to change for them but refuses to adapt in any way shape or form.
Yeah, that is why they keep invading countries half a world away... oh wait, that was a predominantly christian country wasn't it?
The problems with your "ideas" are multiple and fundamental. First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion. Second, all your information about those actions is what you have seen promoted by mass media, who has a vested interest in sensationalism over truth. Third, you are failing to account for the fear and anger of a people who is being invaded and conquered by a nation composed primarily of another religion and who has repeatedly openly scorned their religion, as you are doing now.
The christians I know would act no better, and probably worse given a similar situation. After a united middle east had just finished conquering the US, the mexicans and the refugees from the US who escaped the bombs would be less then kindly disposed towards and muslims. When they start making excuses to invade mexico, who has little hope of defending itself, and after seeing on TV the sexual abuse of captive Americans, if some other muslim nation were to print sacrilegious pictures of Jesus being raped by a dog, while also including in these cartoons some of the lies used to justify the invasion of the US, well there would be plenty of riots and lynching of muslims in Mexico. And I have no doubt there would be christian priests trying to stop the violence, just as there were muslim priests throwing themselves between the mob and the danish embassy. And I have no doubt ignorant muslims would make comments similar to those you are making about how the uncivilized christians need to grow thicker skins.
And as a whole Muslims don't threaten death either, its just a very voacal MINORITY of them that do.
But why doesn't the silent majority in Islam stand up and vocally reject the extremists? When Pat Robertson made comments about "taking out" Hugo Chavez, the White House publicly repudiated him. When he made comments about God having forsaken the people of Dover, PA for their ditching of Intelligent Design, other theologians went on TV and vocally announced that Pat Robertson does not speak for Christianity.
Where were the majority of Muslims when the mullahs of Iran announced a death sentence on Salman Rushdie? Where are the majority of Muslims when Osama bin Laden comes out with his fatwas saying that Western society is corrupt and should either be destroyed or converted?
Having a silent majority, in most cases, is about as good as having no majority at all.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Just take the americans who take exception against europeans (or rather euro's) thinking all yanks are fat lardasses. Of course americans making fun of french women who don't shave is perfectly alright.
The recent bad sales of the X-box 360 in japan stories had a lot of stories claiming that the japanese were to nationalist to buy foreign hardware and instead preffered to buy from their own companies. This totally ignored that sony (japanese) mp3 players do not sell where as apples (chinese, I am kidding, american) iPod is selling like hotcakes. Or that the easiest way into a japanese woman's panties is to bring some brandname merchandise from europe.
Anyway the same people who said the japanese are nationlist happily accept their own american tv stations heavily censoring japenese tv shows to remove any hint of japanese origin.
Pot calling kettle black?
In the more serious story of Islam vs the west this is especially true since the west is terrified of calling the muslims out on their double standards. You would be suprised how few westerners are willing to stand up to this weird kind of terrorism (What are they saying? Stop publising cartoons or we burn our own towns? So far the only people killed are other muslims. Then again what do you expect from people who can't tell the danish from the swiss flag?)
In an argument you can only meet the other person halfway if the other person does the same. If he does not all you have done is moved in range for him to throw stones at you.
Of course the entire current farce is not real. The cartoons were published months ago, then all of a sudden they turned up in the east with handy translations. Oh yeah, can you say organised rioting?
Then again we should also realise that until recently most terrorist attacks in the US were from christians. Check out attacks on abortion clinics. Perhaps muslims and christians ain't that different after all eh?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Before someone else does.
Or how about A.L.L.A.H
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
How about the protesters arrested in NYC during the Republican convention - held in jail and mostly released with no charges?
I agree that from my (insular american) standpoint the Islamic fundamentalists seem pretty bad, but there are fundamentalists of other religions who are pretty nasty too. For example there is the well known Westboro Baptist Church, who are now said to be protesting funerals of American soldiers because those soldiers have been upholding a regime (the Bush Administration) that is soft on "fags" (one of their favorite words) and so on.
The staistic is that only 10% of all Muslims are considered Radical or Extremist.
Well, there are about 215 million Muslims worldwids.
That means over 20 million radical or extremist Muslims.
Thats a pretty big threat if you're a big, world-wide corporation, and you see them going nuts over a cartoon. The last thing Yahoo wants is their India offices being burned to the ground.
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them together, they make a pretty good raft.
That precludes any use by leet speakers. Sorry. Come back when your balls have dropped.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
And, quite frankly a liar.
"I consider it sad that even on a self proclaimed site for "nerds" some people insist on describing the actions of a few people as "the muslim world."
Just so I'm clear, you're making the case that ALL of the people involved in the cartoon protests constitute a "few people". Maybe I made a mistake.
"First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
Nope, I guess I was right.
A few generally means three or four, but could mean more I guess. NOT five hundred thousand.
So stop saying we're judging based on a few people. That's wrong.
"The christians I know..."
And that's where all your credibility goes out the window. You DO NOT get to make a statement like that after taking a position like this
"you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
Then there's this tidbit
"How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?"
REALLY? REALLY? So, muslims are ok with gays then? Oh wait, that's wrong too...
So, your facts are wrong, you're arguments are hypocritical, and you lie.
How long till you run for office?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Again i ask.. so?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
*this knight name is not allowed
Arise Sir PenisBasher!
And all was well.
I can only imagine cowboyneal has done some fancy stem work with the CAPTCHA, after getting bored with geekier dictionaries. Man sucks.
please type the word in this image: smokies random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
People do cry about the religious right, but if they had the power people claim, I wouldn't be seeing commercials about a gay cowboy movie which will likely clean up as the Oscars.
I criticize Christianity with abplomb when sanctimonious Christians start using their religious beliefs as an excuse to attack me. I freely admit that Christianity is both a fear-based and a guilt-based religion.
Islam, on the other hand, is a violence-based religion. Notice the "sword of Allah" on Saudi Arabia's flag? Notice the AK-47 on Hezbollah's flag? I don't bother discussing with Muslims, because I don't know if they're lying or not. Christians can put up a good deal of resistance, but Muslims may very well murder me if I dared criticize Islam in the same way I did Christianity. This is one of several reasons why I think Islam should be resisted.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
"The comparison of firebombing of abortion clinic and assassination of doctors is perfectly..." wrong.
In that case individuals think they're protecting life.
Muslims were OFFENDED by a CARTOON. They're OFFENDED by women voting. Or showing themselves in public. Or driving.
Yeah, they're equivalent...
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
LCallahan may not be registerable, but LCa11ahan is.
What's more, this also is very, very one sided. If you protect "Allah," which is nothing more than a generic name for God that the muslims use, you need to protect all 99 of the names from the Quran...and you have to look out for and protect against any other religion's names to make sure you don't piss them off too. This is a slippery slope. One Yahoo would have been well advised to ignore. Now it's too late. So, I'm off to complain about any name found in any religious text as offending my sensibilities, just to see how they respond (if at all.) /me wonders to self how many "Thor" derivitieves there are on Yahoo.... He's still worshipped, you know. And they have hammers!
But Adolph, Joseph, Pol, Augusto, and Mao are all still allowed? Yahoo! is just rationalizing its fear and calling it the responsible thing to do.
Here's a good essay on the subject. Quote:
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Easy, from a Christian point of view. As Jesus says, "They hated me, what makes you think they won't hate you?" We expect it. The world, non-christians, are _supposed_ to do this to Christians. If people start respecting and liking us, then we think, "Eh? Something must be wrong here." We're taught to love, especially when things don't go our way.
Christians are also able to adapt, since we don't have a strict set of rules. We have 1 rule: love. That makes it really easy to change and adapt. We don't have a huge list of rules that we need to follow (when to pray, what to wear, etc).
Violent reactions to abortion clinics is a result of individuals considering fetus to be humans. I'm not going to weigh in on whether I think they are right or not (I certainly disagree when it comes to zygotes and embryos as in the discussion about RU-486) but I think that if someone believes a group to be committing routine murder they have the right to be annoyed. There is nothing in the bible about unborn children, it is simply a philosophical difference found in adherents. People who have a belief in an immortal soul tend to believe that a human is made as soon as its genetic set is put together, whereas someone who believes in a mortal soul, or no soul at all considers a humans making is when they first gain consciousness. This is the fundamental debate of abortion, what makes a human. If an unborn fetus is indeed a human then Abortion is murder, if not then Abortion is a woman's choice. The debate is as simple as that without weighing into religious doctrine of any faith. The abortion debate hinges on what is murder, murder is a secular principle that society agrees must be stopped in whatever means necessary. Blasphemy however is directly tied to religious law from the ground up. Its prohibition is not based on a secular principle like murder, in fact it contradicts the secular principle of free speech and free religious practice. Thus although you can kill an abortion doctor coming from all walks of life, you must be religious to hate blasphemy.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
thanks Yahoo!
during that time, girls matured early because of the hot desert climate. noting the following, that ayesha (ra) who the Prophet (saw) married was engaged before the prophet married her to another man, a non-muslim. also, notice that these kinds of claims that the prophet was (God forbid) as you say only came about in the middle ages and afterwards - if this really weren't a cultural thing back then, his enemies would have brought this up so long ago, don't you think? perhaps you should study the history of this great man before making blind claims and just copy pasting things you find online. to quote a non muslim, famous playwrite, george bernard shaw, "I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today." -- search wikipedia for "George Bernard Shaw," you'll find it on that page.
I think it's sick that a few extremists can get away with so much in the name of religion. Because some people didn't like a cartoon, they A) incite people to riot and terrorize cities and B) get CNN dragging some poor Islamic onto camera to bully him until he explains part A to CNN's satisfaction (happened a couple nights after the stink first got on the news). Can't we just get along? I am a pretty devout Christian and I've never felt the need to riot about any event that I find offensive...
_______
DIY Linux virus removal:
1) [root@localhost ~]# rm -rf /
Like all messengers except IRC, Y! sucks ass.
I remember a few years ago Yahoo automatically changed all instances of the word "eval" to "review", in order to prevent script injection/evaluation attacks.
The only problem was that their regexp was a little too sweeping, and changed every instance of "medieval" to "medireview". See for example this article at Plastic. Googling for "medireview" gives a few hundred results.
So yes, this is dumb, but it really shouldn't be a surprise.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
They will allow Jesus, Yahwah, etc. but they won't allow Allah? Now while I do not believe in the muslim faith (I am Jewish) I see this as wrong. I understand that we are trying to avoid the morons who want to play around with the name Allah, but hey ban those specific morons. Oh and YAHOO: Hey yea you morons, there are people out there with the name of Osama and the name Bin laden who have ZERO relations with Osama Bin laden. So if you are going to ban the name, ban the ENTIRE name - not just part of it. Or does Yahoo believe a terrorist is goign to identify themselves, publicaly, as a supporter of a terrorist group?
Yahoo - I used to have respect for them, and at some point they shoved their heads in their collective asses.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
"Protecting life" is the excuse they consciously give themselves, but it's the offensive idea that fuels their actions. If they really wanted to "protect life"--and it was totally rational, I'm sure they could think of more constructive ways to accomplish that goal. That soundness of judgment is nowhere to be found; they are driven by extreme disgust of an idea: they are "OFFENDED." Therefore, I think the original comparison is still legit.
Whatever you may be sure of, be sure of this: that you are dreadfully like other people. - James Russell Lowell
> If Yahoo were to ban the use of "Jesus" in screen names then you'd see some outrage from those "kooky right wing christians".
Yeah but, it's not very likely those kooky right wing christians would be chopping off any heads over the whole matter.
Caution: Contents under pressure
I was worried Yahoo would ban my religion.
Wonder what they'll do to all those guys named Jesus?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
to anyone who promises to make them "allah[something]"@ gmail.com...
just e-mail allahbob@gmail.com if you want one...
yahoo seems to be run by a bunch of morons these days.
Mind the gap...
Ok, I'm so done with yahoo now. Nicholas D. Kristof wrote a great piece in the New York Times today. He gave a plug to http://www.booyahoo.blogspot.com/. Come on people, I know we can slashdot this site...
I think you are missing the point. Yahoo! is making a business decision based on a perceived risk that if they do not capitulate to the whims of fundamentalist Muslims, they will invite threats to their business and employees.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
a11ah (use the numeric one to replace L)
Now we see how perfectly compatible is fascism with theocracy. Corporations will do whatever is necessary to enforce religious laws to protect their profits. When the international currency, oil, is controlled by theocrats (Christian, Muslim or otherwise makes little difference), corporate lawmakers will enact those laws, or enforce them privately.
--
make install -not war
To be mroe accurate: We have two big Rules Love God with all your heart, and love you neighbor as yourself. People forget one far too often and use it as an excuse to be fluffy bunny Christians who refure to point out what is wrong..
The last straw for me was finding out that Yahoo! Groups allows the moderator of a group to completely alter the text of any message posted to it, without giving any indication to the readers that it has been altered. When the mod of one group started slanderously editing my messages, Yahoo! refused to acknowledge the problem, and repeatedly claimed that it would violate their privacy agreement to delete them. It wasn't until I emailed my former employer's legal team (the alterations made it look like I was making libelous statements against my former employer) and cc'd Yahoo! abuse department that they were willing to take action. And even then, their response was incompetent, asking me for email headers when I had already said that the messages were posted through their web interface.
Last week I registered a domain for my own private webmail. As soon as I have time to finish setting it up, I'm going to stop using Yahoo! But maybe I'll take one last jab at them, and tell them that this article was the reason I'm not using their services anymore. :o)
Of course one of the Byzantine Emperors married a 10 year old girl too. Unfortunaly in political marraiges of the time, sometimes, though rarely very young girls would be married off.
Maybe they're still being careful to avoid offending people after the incident with revealing the name of a Chinese dissident reporter. A little screen name censoring isn't exactly a violation of free speech. F*** is offensive, it's a common part of American speech, and it's censored. Yahoo merely wants to step softly.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
All this boils down to is yahoo is scared to piss of anyone as thier stock may not be able to take it. What they fail to realize is allah is a term that is used alot in muslim communities and I have even heard a muslim joke about Allah but never the Prophet Mahommad. It would make alot more sense to ban prophet and mahommand only if used together as this would most likely be a non muslim person making a username with those 2 words. This whole war on terror has just grown into a war on Muslims which for me is truly frightening as I have alot of muslim heritage although I am an athiest. I have seen time and time again peopl not get on a bus because that "muslim guy" has a a big bag and looks like he is up to something. Now the guy never looks like he is up to anything except minding his own damn businesses. The other thing about all this is people claiming muslims to be more violent than Christians. Tell that to all those peolple that were killed by Christians in the crusades, Hitler himself used Christian references in his speeches against Jews. I know their is alot of debate on what Hitlar was, religious wise, but no matter what he was he used the christian religion to help him win people over. So these are 2 of the biggest atrocities in history and both invovlved Christains doing things in the name of God. Yes Muslims did fight against the Christians in the crusades but you would fight to if a bunch of white guys showed up to your holy place and said, "Oh this place is holy to us too. We are taking it and you have to leave." So to say Christians don't go crazy, burn things down and kill people is absurd it just hasn't happened recently. Also have you thought maybe the instigators of the violence aren't acting like a normal muslim and enticing others to do the same? hell do you think every single person at a football/soccer riot wants to riot or just went along with the trouble makers because we all act like sheep in groups. We are all on this planet together it doens't matter who you worship or how dark or light you happen to be. When it is all said and done we are all still neighbors, brothers and sisters and we should treat each other as such.
WTF?
...but I don't think you can single-handedly conquer the right-wing hate machine.
A lot of the kids at my children's elementary school won't play with the (few) muslim kids. They've been taught unthinking hatred by their Christian parents, I guess, or by Faux News. Some of the Muslim kids come over to my house to play, though, because my kids go to Unitarian Universalist church and have been trained to judge people as individuals.
We monitor our kids pretty closely, so we meet the parents of their friends before we'll let our kids visit their houses. The Muslim parents we've thus met are similarly cautious. So far they've been nice folks, just trying to get by like anybody else. They haven't freaked out because our church performs gay marriages, or anything like that, although I'm guessing they'd probably freak if their mosque started advocating gay rights.
"The current clash has very little to do with the (very provocative) pictures and a LOT to do with the current world hatred of moslems (grouping them all together as potential terrorists)"
Speak for yourself. I don't group muslims together as terrorists, so this bias is yours.
What I do attribute to muslims as a group is their backward, primitive stance towards women's rights and their insitence on using government insitutions to further their beliefs.
Stop playing the persecution card, it won't work when the persecuted are beheading female journalists, executing female children for being raped, and denying fundamental rights to half of the population.
And please no "yeah but what about the US..." screeds. This article isn't about the US, so save that tired crap for someother time when it'll better serve your karma whoring.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Don't watch much 700 club do you. And as a whole Muslims don't threaten death either, its just a very voacal MINORITY of them that do.
Actually, in certain areas, the moderates are the minority. For example, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and certain parts in Pakistan. However, this isn't to say that Islam is a bad religion even at its extremes. Even Christianity was pretty bad just 500 years ago. You know we used to burn people at the stake, outlaw science, ban plays, execute adulterers, and basically force anything that man did to be related with the Church.
Heck, we mass murdered Pagans, Muslims, Cathars, Jews, Aztecs, other non-conforming Christians and pretty much any other group of people that didn't agree with religion.
However, as Western civilization progressed through the 1700's-to the 1900's we stopped killing each other over religion and the after life became less of an important topic. War became more of a thing of National Policy and usually was over economics rather than those people happened to believe in something else at the time.
Now the reason this happened wasn't because a jolly Church leader came alone and said "Hey guys... I think all this killing may not be in the lines of Jesus Christ's teachings. Maybe we should be nice guys and treat other cultures with respect."
It happened because of economic reasons. After the 1700's the west started seeing an Industrial, scientific, and agricultural revolution. People were able to work and make a living without starving or dying of the plague.
People were more concerned about "I need to get to the factory on time so I can make 5 extra gold pieces to buy those nice pair of boots and feed my family." than "Damn... I'm poor, starving, and having nothing to do. My priest told me that bastard needs to convert to my religion so I'm to go to his lands and kill him..."
Truth of the matter is that these people in this nations are poor and suffering. Even though Saudi Arabia and Iran have some of the highest incomes from oil in the world, their 75% of their people are living below the poverty level.
If you were unemployed, disenfranchised, and everyone else was too... I think that is a breeding ground for religious extremism. Its not Islam... It could be any religion. If these people had educations and a job to go to and a western quality of living (you know... TVs, internet, washing machines, and all the other things Americans take for granted), I doubt they'd find so many people to follow these lines.
But you'll still have the nut job like we do in the states like Patterson, but you wouldn't see mass demonstrations.
I mean, when you have a 9 to 5 job... Who has time to go protest.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Give it up. Your hard facts are no match for rampant rumour.
May the Maths Be with you!
How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?
I think banning homosexuals has a lot to do with people in general and not any one religion. The world in general is yet to come to terms with homosexuality, and it's not because of Christianity (or any one religion).
I mean, this Sunday, the service I was at had a Pastor who discussed this very issue - people do some things (i.e. ban gays) and say that they did it for Christians. Seriously, nobody cares, and even if people do, it's a very small percentage.
Does this mean that all users from Wallah-Wallah, Washington and Tallahassee, Florida are prohibited from having accurate Yahoo! profiles?
When you ban the word "Allah", it means you can't say "Fuck Allah".
*blinks*
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Murder because you believe you're saving life IS NOT equvalent to murder because you DON'T LIKE A CARTOON.
They're both horrible, but equivalent? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Who is better in speech than one who calls (people) to Allah, acts righteously, and says, "I am of those who bow in Islam"? Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and you was hatred become as he were your friend and intimate! And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint - none but persons of the greatest good fortune. And if (at any time) an incitement to discord is made towards you by the Evil One, seek refuge in Allah. He is the One Who hears and knows all things. (Quran 41:33-36)
Grow up everyone.....
Yahoo! should be praised for doing their part for Homeland Security. How so?
1. Ban "Osama" in e-mail account name
2. When Osama Bin Laden tries to create an account to communicate with fellow terrorists, he finds that he is unable to!
If all e-mail providers and ISPs did this, we'd effectively isolate Osama Bin Laden from the Internet! What a fabulous victory in the War On Terror (or whatever Bush is calling it this month).
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
- Moses, by command of god, to his "chosen" people. Numbers 31:17-18, KJV
Yes, xianity is so superior. Not only keep the underage virgins for yourselves, but kill everyone else.
Discussions such as this have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and are completely idiotic in this context. Any culture, religion or nation has something like this, so pointing such a thing out to "prove" some racist or stereotypical point is not only flawed, but highly telling of the intelligence level of the one who brings it up.
And BTW, Mary was an unwed teenage mother. Cast her out!
Hur hur hur.
He said 'hor'. Sounds like "whore".
Hur Hur Hur.
First of all, America is not a Christian country. That sort of thing is banned by the Constitution. Mosques are protected here. As a matter of fact, more churches have been burned down in Alabama this week than Mosques have been in the entire US.
Yeah 12% of the country is a member of a non-christian religion. In any case I don't see your point. Most countries that are primarily muslim are also composed of some non-muslims and most have laws that ensure equal rights based upon religion. The US is as much a "christian nation" as most middle eastern countries are "muslim nations." Certainly from the point of view of a muslim whose country has been invaded, the fact that the majority of the invaders are christians, not unlike the the historical crusades where christians invaded and tried to conquer/convert them, is a significant fact. Think of it from someone in the middle east's point of view.
Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek, not burn down an embassy.
So does islam for that matter. But you still see plenty of christians killing others because they are gay or for numerous other reasons. Hell, one of the primary tenets of christianity is "thou shall not kill." How many people did the primarily christian US army kill when they invaded Iraq? Christians and muslims both do things their religions don't approve of, what a surprise.
According to Islaam, it's OK to enslave those who are not Muslims (see http://www.dhimmitude.org/)
According to the bible it is ok to get your father drunk and screw him if you want a kid. So what? Christianity has alternately approved of and spoke against slavery many times. Currently slavery is illegal in most all of the middle east as it is in the US.
How long do you think such a picture of Mohammed would last anywhere, especially in the Arab world? How long do you think the artist would live, or the museum director, or the mayor of that town?
It all depends upon the town and the people. In many cases it would be regarded as distasteful and perhaps the subject of boycotts. Same as the US, when someone puts up a blasphemous piece of art. It is fine in the big city, but in the country you're likely to get shot by some redneck who watches the 700 club.
And yes, there have been a few murders committed by those who call themselves Christian, but those are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and Christains agree with this prosecution. Besides, how many gays and abortion doctors have been murdered this week? Can you point to one story? I can tell you about at least 18 Christians who were murdered in Nigeria this weekend. A Jewish man in France was tortured for three weeks and killed in France by several muslims. How many gays died again?
How many riots have there been because muslims are burning red banners with crosses on them (the Danish flag). How would muslims respond if we were burning flags with a koran on it?
You know the red cross on a white background was also the symbol of the crusades right? That is why the red cross is called the red crescent there. In any case if we were burning flags with pictures of a book on it I imagine they would be confused.
Need I go on? Now, stop being ignorant. Stop comparing the true religion of peace with that of murderous thugs.
"The true religion of peace" as you call it is responsible for more death than almost any other in history. Between crusades, biological w
The first page of that article was great, I agree. But the second page goes on to make false statements (such as, the president can't hurt you if he wants to - currently the president can seize you in broad daylight without making any charges and torture you to death in a secret prison without telling anyone) and ridiculous sweeping generalities (as if "radical Islam" and "Western media" were cohesive entities with a single mind each).
It also conveniently ignores the role of agents provocateur - most of the rioters have not seen the real cartoons, but supposedly many of them have seen extremely offensive cartoons, calculated to stir their emotions, distributed by.... who? Most of the rioters are said to be illiterate!
Most Arab Muslims have no access whatsoever to these cartoons. Their so-called "rioting" and "spontaneous demonstrations" are being orchestrated by somebody.
Mainstream Islam does not benefit from these "riots" and "demonstrations". In fact the principle benefactors of this activity are the USA, Israel, Iran, and oppressive Middle Eastern governments (Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) who want to let their dissatisfied masses blow off steam instead of revolting. These countries profit from either demonizing Islam or demonizing western secularism.
The essay's conclusion, that we should uphold freedom of speech, I totally agree with! Unlike the current majority opinion in the US, I might add, which is that publications offensive to mainstream christians - principally gay porn and paedophilic materials - should not be allowed.
They certainly desserve a mention, but as far as I know they were killed "on the spot" by the regular army ; while that's a serious breach of the laws of war, that's not something that was unheard of before, and not a crime that has never been committed again since. The case of deaths camps is different, because it amounts to the building of an industrial slaying machine. Something very unique in history, and in fact the only disputed point by revisionnists.
Just FFT.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
"During that time, girls matured early because of the hot desert climate." Huh? There is no evidence that "hot desert climates" have anything to do with puberity. If anything due to diet, climate and physical hardship it would have been later than what we currently are seeing in females.
This is the last roll I'll feed today, but either you're intentionally ignoring it, or you're a moron. Or both.
HYPOCRISY
"The christians I know..."
And that's where all your credibility goes out the window. You DO NOT get to make a statement like that after taking a position like this
"you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
You denounce people for judging based on a "few" people, then make judgements based on "the Christians you know". DO YOU KNOW THEM ALL? Then you're a fucking hypocrite, because YOU judged based on the few Christians YOU know.
LIE
"How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?"
REALLY? REALLY? So, muslims are ok with gays then? Oh wait, that's wrong too..."
Muslims are against homosexuality too. So your statement that "there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?" is a lie.
The worst part is, it's obvious, yet you're too biased and self-righteous to see (or admit) it.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Is there any doubt that we have lost the war on terror?
Well put it this way...
WWII: 1941-1945
War On Terror: 2001-2006(+)
If we can defeat two of the most powerful nations on earth in 4 years, but can't beat a handful of men in 5 years, then we are doing pretty badly as a nation.
If I hear the words "War On Terror" in 2011 out of a politicians mouth, I'm going to very pissed.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
If you're a muslim woman, you shouldn't have any problems.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
I think banning homosexuals has a lot to do with people in general and not any one religion. The world in general is yet to come to terms with homosexuality, and it's not because of Christianity (or any one religion).
Homosexuality has been embraced by and rejected by various cultures at different times over the years. Religions too, have had different stances on the subject. The Roman catholic and Greek orthodox churches both have historical marriage ceremonies specifically for gay couples.
Even so, I've never heard anyone argue against gay rights, gay marriage, or the right to have consensual same sex relations without voicing religious objections. In the US, with christianity dominating, they are the most vocal and influential opposition to the concept. The point I was making was that controversial things are treated specially, like removing "gay" and "allah" from forums. This applies to both muslim and christian hot topics.
I did not mean to characterize christians as a whole or in general. Rather I thought that it would be useful to the previous poster to show why you should not judge all members of a given religion based upon the radical, violent misdeeds of some adherents. As I suspected (and has been confirmed by their later posts) they are radically christian and very hateful towards muslims. I hoped that a comparison with their own religion would have some hope of reflecting to him (or her) that same prejudice so that they could recognize it for what it was and reject it.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
This comes as no surprise, yahoo still sucks. If you want to do something even remotely interesting find another service and leave Yahoo to the mundanes.
It yahoo actually ever does get interesting, it will be because they've lost their primary users to MSN or back to AOL.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
And Americans wonder why economic sanctions don't seem to work...
Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Here is one to keep you warm until that day:
"War on Drugs" now working on it's 35th year, with no end in sight.
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
If you think there is a continuum then you do not understand the question. It is wrong to kill babies. It is wrong to deprive women of freedom of choice over their own bodies and subject them to a painful pregnancy for any reason but the welfare of others. Thus, taking the middle ground is to acknowledge that one or both of these injustices are happening.
There are people who are willing to stand by to see these injustices happen, but those are cynical, apathetic people who are of a lower moral character than abortion doctors and those who murder abortion doctors because both these groups are doing what is right in their own reasoning. Don't you see? abortion is the greatest debate in history because to a religious person, or a secular humanist or anyone else, life is sacred. You cannot say that there is part of a life in a woman's womb, you cannot redefine life though existential debate for that is denying your own existence and your own right to life.
To allow abortion in certain cases and deny it in others is to acknowledge abortion as the slaughter of the innocent and as a woman's right. Thus in the cases where it is denied, you are forcing a woman into having her life changed by an unwanted child for no reason but your bossy authoritarian and when abortion is granted you are killing a human that has done nothing to deserve it.
In the US today, abortion is legal, yet when you accidentally terminate a wanted pregnancy through negligent driving it is considered manslaughter. This inconsistency leads to only one conclusion: a fetus is human if and only if its mother wants it. If this is about the beginnings of humanity, how can we not extrapolate this nihilist world view into our own lives? Am I only human because my mother and others continue to love me?
There is no middle ground when talking about what is life, it didn't work for Plato, Descartes or Wittgenstein who are all people smarter than you that have tried to define humanity and it won't work for me. The abortion debate should be thought through by each one of us, because it goes beyond choice or killing babies, it cuts to the very core of each one of our existences. The politically correct middle ground might be the safest option, but most great questions, the middle ground between two extremes is the only one that can be conclusively proved to be wrong.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Many years ago we had a piece of software that checked a chat log for the words "close" and "area" to initiate an audio chat. Except that it didn't care what order the words cane in, or if they were nested in other words.
He often used the phrase "bareass closet" to initiate the audio chat in testing.
You know, since unhappiness over cartoons from Denmark somehow translated into burning down a KFC in Pakistan. You know, that famous Danish outfit, "Kentucky Fried Chicken."
This reminds me of the silliness I heard a few days ago about how they're no longer calling that flaky pastry a "danish." Instead they're gonna start calling it a Rose of the Prophet Mohammed. (Or is it "The" Rose of the Prophet Mohammed? I'm sorry, I don't know, please don't kill me!)
Well whaddya know, America isn't the only country that pulls this kind of dumbass shit.
Support the FairTax
So stop with that tired old line.
DID YOU GET THAT? WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MAJORITY.
Why is that SO difficult for you to get? That people can criticize some people without lumping them together? Is it becuase you're incapable of such sophisticated thinking, so you assume everyone else is as unsophisticated as you?
We're talking about the ones who are actually doing what we're denouncing.
So in the future, when you feel the urge to defend the majority, make sure we're denouncing the majority before you waste your time.
"No - yet "we" seem to group them, as a whole, into the "potential terrorist" category."
NO, as I said to you before, that's a made up stupid ass argument that detracts from the discussion. YOU group them into that category, at or at least it appears you do by your constant assertions that "we" do. WE don't.
"And while we're at it, maybe we should stop invading countries in the ME, killing their friends and families and lying about the reasons?"
And finally the truth, you think "we" deserve their enmity.
Perhaps if you weren't so busy assuming everyone is as closed-minded and reactionary as you, you'd realize that
A) these problems existed before there were any western powers in the Middle East.
B) executing little girls for being raped isn't the fault of the West. Nor are any of the anti-human rights stances taken by devout beleivers of islam. That's JUST islam. JUST the religion and its followers.
Maybe you should get your face out of muslim ass and honestly criticise them instead of making up arguments to detract from the issues.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I said this before
"The worst part is, it's obvious, yet you're too biased and self-righteous to see (or admit) it."
And you proved me correct.
Thanks for that, save the rest for someone who gives a shit what hypocritical liars think.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"The problems with your "ideas" are multiple and fundamental. First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
How many millions of people need to attack freedom of speech before you understand that it's not just a few bad apples but a fundamental conflict between their beliefs and the right to freedom of speech. They blame all of Denmark for the actions of one newspaper, and expect laws passed to restrict freedom of speech because they don't like dissent from their beliefs.
Vote for Pedro
Oh, I absolutely understand - I was corroborating what you said, but just wanted to tell you that not all actions have religions motivations (or attempts at placating a community).
Like I said, the topic of homosexuality seems to transcend borders, so it would be unfair to pin actions against it on any one (or more) religion(s).
Cheers.
Western countries like to meddle. Name the country (England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, etc) and they meddled. However, to use your example of meddling think South America! The West constantly meddles in South America! Yet do we see them burning down embassies? How about terrorist attacks? Considering how much we meddle in South America I am surprised not more has occured.
Even though many in South America have an axe to grind with the US, they still buy the jeans, computers, and hamburgers! I think there is an attitude difference!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I consider it sad that even on a self proclaimed site for "nerds" some people insist on describing the actions of a few people as "the muslim world."
How many people does it have to be before people like you stop calling them "a few"? Okay, there are over a billion Muslims in the world. Does that mean if only 5 million of them riot it's a tiny, insignificant subculture within greater Islam? You can't say "the Muslim world" thinks or does something unless at least 50% of Muslims do it? That's ridiculous. You might as well say America did not bomb Iraq, only a small, insignificant, non-representative part of America bombed Iraq.
Your ignorance. When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual? I seem to recall a mass murder a few weeks ago. How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?
According to your argument, Christians as a group have never murdered anybody, only "a few people" have. Obviously Christians have nothing against gay people since the vast majority have never actually gone around killing gay people. They must want to co-exist peacefully.
But seriously, you're joking right? If Christians were like Muslims, all those prominent gay marriage ceremonies a while ago would have been fire-bombed. Or do you think if someone tried to have a prominent, public gay marriage in, say, ANY Muslim country, they would be allowed?
The christians I know would act no better, and probably worse given a similar situation. After a united middle east had just finished conquering the US, the mexicans and the refugees from the US who escaped the bombs would be less then kindly disposed towards and muslims. When they start making excuses to invade mexico, who has little hope of defending itself, and after seeing on TV the sexual abuse of captive Americans, if some other muslim nation were to print sacrilegious pictures of Jesus being raped by a dog, while also including in these cartoons some of the lies used to justify the invasion of the US, well there would be plenty of riots and lynching of muslims in Mexico.
Eh, bad example. Of course if we were the ones taken over we'd be upset. But do you think Christians in America would be rioting in the streets if, say, the stuff you described happened in some remote part of Russia? It isn't the West's fault if Muslims have this dumb idea of "Pan Muslims Brotherhood" that links everybody's plights together.
It's like you're trying to argue the majority of Christians are as bad as the tiny, insignificant portion of Islam that captures media attention.
I'm really glad to see your postings in this thread.
In regards to how many civilians have been killed in Iraq in the most recent military and policing action it is conservatively estimated by Iraqi Medical Examiners, World and Iraqi Press as between 28,000 and 30,000. All of these are cases where there are confirmed civilian corpses. I would guess that the actual toll is higher, and certainly the cost in human terms is much, much greater. When you kill a person you leave their family behind. If my father was killed this afternoon as a non-militant I would most certainly feel the consequences of his death.
Umm, Numbers is from the Torah, so it's the basis of Judaism, Christianity and is a strong influence on Islam too.
Might want to check this all out before you make wild accusations there - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
Now then, that from Numbers is in the context of a war between the Israelites and Midianites, not a general marry underage girls rule. In taking Bible quotes, it's important to look at the overall context of the quote.
I'm not saying that you have no right to complain or ask Yahoo for a change of their policy. You do. In fact I believe you can say just about anything you want to say about and to them. If it is in their interest to allow certain forms of a word and not other forms, then they might change and allow it. However, I can imagine that it would be quite a challenge for them to police that without causing other members of their community to become angry.
I'm not saying "put up or shut up" either - far from it in. In a captialistic free-speech protected society (that's what this is supposed to be, right?), you are welcome to post your concern on slashdot, possibly round up and align the opinions of many individuals and cause change. You are also able to create your own version of Yahoo with whatever policies and proceedures you feel inclined or necessary to meet your business goals. Good luck and I hope for the best.
This is a good point. If situations were reversed, we might be listening to lunatics like Pat Robertson. He is the exact same type of person as the few insane Imams who condone and encourage acts of hate.
"Your ignorance. When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual? I seem to recall a mass murder a few weeks ago. How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression" Goolge mathew Shepard and I think this guy dissagree's. He wanted to place a plaque where he died that said ".. on this date Matthew Shepard entered hell".
He is in favor of stoning all homosexuals to death in all his sermons and is quite powerful in Kansas city. His website is www.godhatesfags.com (not linking because its offensive)
http://saveie6.com/
From the Wikipedia article - "These traditions are from the hadith collections of Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875). These two collections are in general regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims". Not just one guy who was senile, but two, likely old guys.
Anyway when talking about Mohammed, since that's alot of conjecture, after the fact writing and since alot of the New Testament was written after the fact and sometimes by odd fellas, Aisha's being underage has as much factual basis as your arguements against it. The Sunni believe it, the Shia aren't calling it complete heresy, but don't like her for other reasons, so it's the stronger point.
I sort of wish that was true, because then the solution would be obvious. But I'm afraid it isn't. Osama bin Laden comes from a rich family. And, to move away from the infected discussion about islam, the Baader Meinhof terrorists were not poor either. Neither were typically IRA members.
I have no idea what causes people to go nuts like that, but I'm quite sure it's more complicated than just poverty.
But I also feel that people with legitimate names need a method of asking for a review and exception.
I am Catholic and none of the allowed names bother me.
How many millions of people need to attack freedom of speech before you understand that it's not just a few bad apples but a fundamental conflict between their beliefs and the right to freedom of speech. They blame all of Denmark for the actions of one newspaper, and expect laws passed to restrict freedom of speech because they don't like dissent from their beliefs.
Sigh, there is no getting through to some people. There is a culture and a body of law in many places that does not support the fundamental right to free expression. In different locations it is supported to differing degrees. The french ban "hateful" speech. The US bans political expression at Bush rallies and anything embarrassing or illegal as "national security issues." So yes I fundamentally disagree with many of the laws in many of these countries. I further disagree with acting violently in retaliation for the speech of others. The point is, a tiny minority acted violently and most every official religious for government body denounced the violence. Muslims risked their lives to stop it, and you and the previous poster insist on painting those officials, governments, religious leaders, and adherents to the religion as a whole with the very same brush as the people who committed the violence. Not only that, but you try to justify it by saying christians don't act the same way. Guess what some do, and a lot more would if they were in the same position as these people are.
The point is, muslims are not violent. Christians are not violent. Some particular muslims and christians are violent.
Wrong...
Christians do not follow the "New Covenant" alone. Take the "Ten Commandments", for instance. Or do they suddenly not believe in Adam & Eve, or the version of the Flood myth with Noah in it? Or David and Goliath? How many church songs are based around the Psalms? How many Christians use the old testament to try and control or legislate the lives of others? Many groups pick and choose what they want to believe that certain day, yes, and in the New Testament, certain beliefs of the old were denounced or modified. But the foundations of Christianity, and many of its core tenets, are still found in the Old Testament. And nowhere does the New Testament say that what Moses proclaimed in those verses was false. If your christian church uses only the new testament, and never refers to the old, then it is an extreme rarity. Do you burn all copies of the Old Testament as heresy?
And the Jewish religion is based around the Torah (the books of Moses, aka the first five books of the Old Testament). The "Old Testament" is a piece of the Christian Bible, compiled along with the new long after the time of christ. Parts of it were removed over time because they disagreed with other parts, as well. These books are often called the Apocryphal books. Every translation of the bible is greatly influenced by the translator and their own personal beliefs or political motivations. How many monks were brave enough to pen something for King James that was critical of a monarchy? If you choose to follow a book for your own religion, you have only yourself to blame for the quagmire of how people read such a text. No difference between the Quran, the Bible or Dianetics.
The point I was trying to make was that someone's quoting of Islamic text to prove that "muslims are evil because they have child brides" is pretty blatantly idiotic, completely off-point, has no bearing on the issue at hand, and that the same thing can be done with any religion or culture that has a written history.
What about the people financing these acts of terrorism? Generally it's the mega rich sheeks and dictators. Arguing that Christian fundamentalists would go around bombing people if they had the money is absurd. Relatively the people who finance Al-Queida are vastly more rich than any Christians in the mid-west.
a l_atro.html
Islam has a long well documented history of fanaticism that involves killing. Mohammed himself killed thousands in all the battles for Jihad (i.e. taking over all countries until Islam is universal.) To quote from a Hindu source about Mohammed's war atrocities.
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/mogh
You must remember, without Charlemagne it's quite possible that Arabic would be the dominant language in the EU right now.
And while you can claim the crusades as a Christian example of war atrocities. I think you'd find it to be one of the only cases in history. Very few modern Christians would consider the cruisades to be in line with their faith, even remotely. Nowhere in the New Testament does it suggest to go out and try and conquer countries in the name of Christ.
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
I mean, when you spend 9 to 5 posting on /. ... Who has time to go protest?
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
"Now then, that from Numbers is in the context of a war between the Israelites and Midianites, not a general marry underage girls rule. In taking Bible quotes, it's important to look at the overall context of the quote."
My point exactly... Anything can be read by anyone however they want, and throwing out quotes from a text, with no basis or foundation, does no one any good. It can be done from any angle or side. No different from what the poster did with the the quotes on marrying an underage girl above, and still just as pointless. No different from people taking the laws of Moses re: things like homosexuality, wearing the wrong sorts of clothing, or touching the flesh of unclean animals (why is football not a sin?) and picking and choosing what's convenient to believe.
The Lord's Resistance Army is a truly bizarre creolization of fundamentalist Christianity and animistic witchcraft much like voudon and santeria only with a lot more insane brutality mixed in. Christianity's been the excuse used by a lot of brutal warlords in the past, but I'm not sure that I'd blame Christianity for this one because this is a really, really weird offshoot of the religion.
The LRA is truly one of the worst horrors of the modern world, and I think it's a real shame that no one with the military might to do something about them has. I think a large part of the reason for that is the horror and revulsion that most military leaders feel at the thought of having to send their soldiers out to fight against an army of traumatized child conscripts. A war like that could psychologically devastate an entire generation of soldiers, and there's little economic gain to be had for a country for stepping into this mess, so the world just closes its eyes and hopes it will go away on its own. It's an utterly disgusting tragedy that will take decades to end and decades more to heal.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Funny, I guess I'm not up on current events. I had no idea the media was covering up all those Christians that are taking over elementary schools in Russia and killing kids by the hundreds, all in the name of the Koran... I mean Bible.
I had not heard about Christians burning down disco's in Bali or blowing themselves up in a teenage hangout in Israel.
I have not heard how Christian "youths" are raping and beheading Muslim school-girls on their way home from school.
When I saw Billy Graham, I must have been in the bathroom when he was screaming "Death to the Infadels, Death to Saudi Arabia, Death to Iran!"
I guess the jews really do own the media.
How many people have the US killed since invading Iraq? 100,000? 200,000?
Gee, that only puts us 800,000-900,000 behind their previous leader. I guess we need to start gassing some Kurdish children to catch up! Actually, your numbers are wildly inflated and the 10,000-20,000 numbers I've heard included active Iraqi military, terrorists, civilians killed by terrorist and the civilians the terrorist hide behind. However, I agree that war sux and any civilian death is a travesty. Everyone in America, including the leadership and military, agrees. Can you say the same about the Arab world? Besides, we are talking about the actions of a religion, not a government. How many Iraqi's voted in the last election and had the choice of more than one candidate?
How many people did the primarily christian US army kill when they invaded Iraq?
Again, the US Army is not a "Christian Army". Trust me, I was a soldier in the US Army and as a Christian, I was the minority.
You know the red cross on a white background was also the symbol of the crusades right?
Did you know that the crusades were in response to a 1000 years of Dhimmitude (read: slavery)? Still, that cross is a symbol of the Christian religion. I still don't see Christians burning down embassies.
But you still see plenty of christians killing others because they are gay or for numerous other reasons
No I don't. I see a few red-necks doing so, and they are strongly condemded by the Christian Church. Then they are tried for murder and imprisoned or put to death, in this country you call "Christian".
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/26/ 142243
cmdrtaco was so upset.
Assuming this is a security measure, wouldn't we want the screen names to be obvious? In general this is a stupid idea though, as I'm sure there are many legitimate reasons to have "allah" in a user id, including the callahan example.
Um, it's not. Depending on which part of the koran you read, Islam can be sightly polytheistic, and "Allah" came from the name of the "moon god". My first google search yields: this link
Take that with a grain of salt. My workplace blocks that website under the grounds of "Hate Speech." Most sites that support the position that Allah is the ancient Arabic moon deity Ilah all quote from Morey. A few more links down in a Google search for "allah moon deity" reveals this long rebuttal to Morey. Morey's argument doesn't really account for why the Law of Moses is taken as the root basis for Quranic Law (much like English Common Law is the root of US Constitutional Law).
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You forgot Clitheroe. That would be four.
Stick Men
Hmm.
I like most of your post.
But it seems to me that the extremes are easier to prove conclusively wrong.
i.e.
Abortion is illegal under ANY circumstances.
Okay the mother AND the child will die when she is about 7 months pregnant.
Abortion is legal under ANY circumstances.
Okay we are killing an 8 month old baby that could survive outside the womb.
So the middle ground must be where the correct answer lies or there may be -no- correct answer. Heads you lose, Tails you lose.
If you get down to it, even if you use birth control prevent the union of sperm and egg that would have occured- you just prevented a human life. Maybe not violently but just as surely as if you had aborted it at 8 months.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'm trying to figure out how my post could possibly be moderated "flamebait".
Is it "flamebait" to make an easily verifiable statement of fact about the contents of a religious work?
Especially when I didn't even espouse an opinion as to said contents?
Hoping the metamoderators will help me out here...
It all comes back to where life begins- If a zygote has life, it is wrong to kill it.
I assume you're vegan, because animals have life too, and therefore it is wrong to kill them.
But then plants are alive, so it's wrong to kill plants too.
Fungus? Alive.
Cultured bacteria? Plankton? Alive.
What do you eat without committing -- or relying on someone else to commit -- a wrong?
Doesn't matter what the religion or reason. Those who feel powerless, who feel no other recourse is open to them because they're being stepped on and subjugated, will often resort to violence and force.
It's hard to say what the religious beliefs of the leaders of Germany and Italy were because they contradicted themselves so much in word and action. They were certainly Christian in name and used a lot of religious rhetoric, but it's hard to say that they were devout, practicing Christians. It is more likely that they were simply exploiting Christianity in the same manner as all other authoritarians.
Authoritarian and nationalist / xenophobic movements all rely on an ethos of the superiority of the group based on shared (and often inherited) values. Even atheistic movements in the Soviet Union and in China shared these characteristics in their revolutions. The real problem is not religion but the tribal, "pack animal" instincts that are the core of these movements in history. Religion just provides the excuse, but the real malaise is deeper and ultimately is universally human.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
How intellectually lazy is it to say that 'christians are busy killing abortion doctors and burning clinics' when clearly it's a few and not the many. What you have done is a logical fallacy and completely incorrect. Some is not all. Two is not all. You said 'They are too busy killing doctors and burning clinics.' So to you, all Christians are killing doctors and burning clinics. I haven't seen any clinics burned today, doctors killed today or yesterday - or the day before. One fellow I remember, Paul Hill, killed a doctor in Florida. He was sentenced and executed for his crime. You would have to run a counter at the bottom of an article trying to count the number of people killed every day in the name of Allah. So no, it's not the same. It's not equivalent at all. And glib, throw away, illogical statements such as the one you made do not provide moral equivalence to the argument.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
It is wrong to kill babies. It is wrong to deprive women of freedom of choice over their own bodies and subject them to a painful pregnancy for any reason but the welfare of others.
Oh yeah? I believe in Freezebortion. The cryogenic freezing of embryos so that someday in the future, when the technology is available, they can be placed into the wombs of young christian virgins and have the life that they deserve.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
The Iranian mullahs are filthy rich. Osama bin Laden was a multimillionaire before his funds were frozen. All of the September-11th hijackers were middle class and college educated.
While poverty plays a role in motivating terrorists, ideological reasons should not be overlooked.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
There is a simple way to sort out where the blame goes, either to the religion or a person. A religion is judged by its scriptures and its prophets, and people by their words and deeds. Muslim people, lots of them, are rioting. These are not "protests" or "demonstrations", these are violent murderous riots with guns and flames and everything you would expect from a riot. These people, who are muslim, are evil and should be punished for their actions and neither websites (wasn't this thread about yahoo?) nor governments nor businesses should bow to the influence of evil insane people who are bent on destruction. These people are committing acts of evil over a cartoon for cryin out loud. That is stupid. They claim they've been "offended" but how offended are the families of the victims of these muslim rioters? And what compassion or love are these muslim terrorists showing towards their victims or their families? If a religion isn't useful at getting people to love one another and not murder one another, its a failure as a religion. While you can't necessarily judge a religion based upon the actions of its followers, you would have to be an idiot to not draw some empirical evidence from these violent events about the nature of the Islam religion. Extremist muslims are committing acts of evil and claiming that it is the will of God to do so.
Religious extremism in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing (Christ is a christian religious extremist), but apparently when the religion is Islam, it leads to rioting and people getting beheaded for no good reason. The religion of Islam itself must be solely judged by its scriptures and by its prophet. Was this prophet a good man or a bad man? Was he full of love and compassion or hate? We know for a fact that Muhammed led troops in war and had multiple wives. Seems wrong to me. The spanish inquisition and the crusades, which were perpetrated by the roman catholic church, are an example of people doing evil acts. But to judge the religion of christianity based upon their actions is a non sequitur, a religion can only be accurately be judged by its scriptures and its prophets.
In Christianity, the man Jesus Christ (Iesous Christos in greek) spoke at great length about how his true disciples should be harmless as doves, turn the other cheek, give, love, and forgive. He said that if his disciples do not forgive, neither will THEY be forgiven. Jesus is, was, and always will be the most extremist Christian, seeing as he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. We all know how he died, and he did not resist his oppressors but gave himself over to them to be crucified. Such is the example that the Scriptures of the christian religion gives to its followers. The disciples of Christ are in varying levels of maturity, some have been long time followers, some only recently have been born again. But a born again christian is commanded by his Lord to forgive and love, trusting that God in his own time will take his vengeance. Christians who are killing people and bombing doctors and abortion clinics are 1) impatient 2) unloving 3) murderous. They are not following the example set by Christ and therefore are committing acts of evil.
We need to get away from the political-religious mindthink of this situation and get back to defining what really is evil and what is not. Killing? obviously evil. no one should do it. Stealing? also. The less people that are out there doing evil deeds and otherwise being mean nasty jerks, the better. I judge the religion of Islam based on its ridiculous text in its scriptures. As for the muslims themselves, we christians we realize they are blinded by the evil one into doing evil acts. If they saw the peaceful loving example of the man Jesus Christ, our Lord, and if they believed that he was God in the flesh, then they would go a long way towards improving the situation in the middle east. As for homosexuality, that was taboo in cultures throughout the world regardless of religion. Christians simply believe that
Also, contraception doesn't prevent birth in any more concrete way than simply not having sex or having sex using a different orifice or through "outercourse". Destruction of germ cells is simply part of the human condition as ovulation and even ejaculation will continue regardless of sexual activity. Preventing a hypothetical pregnancy has nothing to do with ending a real one.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
according to islam, allah has 99 names
http://www.sufism.org/society/asma/
If you get down to it, even if you use birth control prevent the union of sperm and egg that would have occured- you just prevented a human life. Maybe not violently but just as surely as if you had aborted it at 8 months.
No, not the same at all. Using your logic, if I kiss my wife but fail to have sex, I've just prevented a human life. If I fail to go outside and meet women, I've prevented a human life. This line of thought makes no sense and causes me to shake my head in wonder at people who would use a "birth control = abortion" formula. The fact of the matter is that once you were conceived, you're a blob of reproducing cells until the day you die. What's been or could have been "prevented" has nothing to do with it, the wheels are set in motion and you'll have to come to grips with it. The parent poster was spot on.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
that ValhallaHank has to find a new nickname?
Am I the only one who noticed that his Username test4allah408754873 is a possible Social Security Number> 408-75-4873?
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Perhaps you do know a lot about football... the real football as it's called in most of the world (assuming the .co.uk URL below your name is your site). In American Football there are several positions and cornerback is one of them (also called a Defensive Back).
I've sold my shares, now I'm cancelling my account.
I will not be told when and where I may use the name of some 7th century bi-sexual paedophile.
Note, I have not used any names, if you are offended, it is because you know it is historically accurate, and the truth hurts.
I'm not even Muslim and I'm offended.
I assume you're vegan, because animals have life too, and therefore it is wrong to kill them.
Maybe he values human life more than animal life. Many (i.e., virtually all) cultures make a major distinction between animals an humans. It is murder to kill a human, but it is at worst a property crime and at best a service to humanity to kill an animal (depending on the animal).
- You have millions of people who volunteer to fight. And many more millions at home who are supporting those fighting.
- Soldiers aren't brought up on charges for questionable field mistakes.
- You can level entire cities in an attempt to destroy the enemy.
- Your enemy wears a uniform and follows a chain of command.
- When the leader surrenders, the soldiers go home.
WWII was such a different war than the ones that came after it (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). It's the difference between a conventional war that takes place on a battlefield (or the burned out ruins of a city) and one where you have the enemy mixed in with innocent civilians."Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
Oh, take the self-righteous angst and stuff it. There is something serious sick in Islam today and unless some of their leaders stand up and turn the ship around, it's only going to get worse. We're aren't talking about a "few", we're talking about thousands and thousands of people, in countries all over the world, reacting VIOLENTLY to images that were published in a country they've probably never even been to. Images published months ago! That in all likelyhood they haven't even been "allowed" to see for themselves! That's lunacy, and people like you need to stop rationalizing and justifying and start calling a spade, a spade.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
But at least we've won the War on Effective Cold Medicine!
The key difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists right now is that Christain fundamentalists typically have a pretty decent quality of life, and Islamic fundamentalists don't.[...]If you took all of the wealth in the US and Europe and handed it over to the Middle East, I have a feeling that you'd soon see an awful lot of poor, desperate, angry Christians burning flags in the street while a bunch of well-fed, well-clothed Muslim families watched from their living rooms and wondered what in the hell could possibly make those Christian lunatics so rabid.
The wealth of the US and Europe is handed over every day to the Middle East. At about $60 a barrel. Many of your top-brand islamic fundamentalists their pockets with your money. In fact, the GDP per capita of Saudi Arabia is $12900, that is 13 times that of Mali ($1000), a peaceful stable secular democracy. The Malinese are (mostly) moslem, but very nonfundamentalist. If you want a poor Christian country, there is Malawi ($700). Comparably quiet.
No, being the haves or have nots doesn't seem to be the explanation. Try again.
Now the reason this happened wasn't because a jolly Church leader came alone and said "Hey guys... I think all this killing may not be in the lines of Jesus Christ's teachings. Maybe we should be nice guys and treat other cultures with respect."
While I agree with that a bit, I do tend to think that Tyndale, Gutenberg, and Luther had a whole lot to do with it. One of the key problems was before Tyndale's translation, Gutenberg's printing press, and Luther's revolution the gospel was not available to the people. To have an English (or any other language besides Latin, Greek, or Hebrew) translation was forbidden and in many cases punished by death. When the Bible was made available to the masses the masses were able to hold the Church accountable to the Bible, which lead to a lot of reform.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Allah can be used as part of ordinary names in arabic, such as in "Abdallah" (Servant of God). I can understand that banning Callahan was an unintended side effect. But is banning the common moslem man's name Abdallah respectful of moslems?
Thank you. And before you have any ideas about me, I am not a militant Muslim and I reject most of what "islamic culture" is and loathe most "Islamists". I hate the fact that they make people think that what they are is what Islam is supposed to be.
So my personal preferences for both me and you are that you and I have the right to find happiness however we see fit provided that we do not harm anyone else.
I'm glad that you found my link on pedophiles informative. Believe me, the goal of homosexuals is to enforce gay rights on the entire world. They are everything that a conservative Christian fears about liberal democrats except one-hundred times worse. Gays will lie about their plans and desires in accordance with the homosexual agenda. I encourage you look up the gay concept of "ACT UP" which indicates why all agreements made with homosexuals are useless. (It gives insight into why Brett Lock offered a "truce".) The more straight people (that's you and I) who wake up to the threat to our life, liberty, and property the greater chance we have of the world not becoming one big gay empire. America may very well be lost, and that makes me very sad. I love America, but its future is rather dim.
...to a religious person, or a secular humanist or anyone else, life is sacred.
What?
But I had to point this out: when abortion is illegal, it leads women to go to desperate means. You're not going to prevent abortions unless you outlaw knitting needles, coathangers, tree-branches, letter openers, twist-ties, lengths of wire.... basically anything that can be used to stab a fetus. All of these methods have severe risks to the mother. Tell me when you believe abortion to be justified, and perhaps we can come to an agreement. But reproduction is a burden borne disproportionately by women. It is a risk for them to take it; the fetus risks nothing, on the other hand, remaining in the woman. Unless and until there is some alternate means for women to give up their fetus into the responsible womb of another, I do not see why the fetus's rights should trump theirs.
There is something serious sick in Islam today and unless some of their leaders stand up and turn the ship around, it's only going to get worse.
Are there any prominent government or religious leaders in the predominantly muslim countries that did not stand up and urge tolerance and non-violence over the cartoons. Every one I can think of did. Of course you probably don't know that because you were watching Fox.
We're aren't talking about a "few", we're talking about thousands and thousands of people, in countries all over the world, reacting VIOLENTLY to images that were published in a country they've probably never even been to. Images published months ago!
They are reacting violently to the rabble rousers that insisted on touring multiple countries showing those images (some of which were later shown to have never been published prior to their demonstrations). People are reacting because they are scared, as you would be if the largest military power in your area of the world was bombed to hell and back and then taken over by people almost entirely of another religion and if horrible abuses, murders, rape, and torture were on the news every day as, "this may happen here soon."
That's lunacy, and people like you need to stop rationalizing and justifying and start calling a spade, a spade.
Yeah, racism is a great complement to your other prejudice. Do you want to be judged based upon the violent acts of a small, ignorant, frightened portion of your religion while under extreme duress?
Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom because ~99% of voters voted that way in the referendum, the majority feel it is in their interests both culturally and economically not to join with the rest of Ireland.
My point had nothing to do with referendums. Or even for that matter modern interests. It had to do with the UK's interest in Ireland to begin with- as a military buffer against Spain during the Protestant Reformation.
Not that Americans who've sponsored the terrorists have bothered with trivial details ("Hey I'm a 1/16th Irish you know! A United Ireland is what you want you say, people struggling against an oppressive English regime? Sure have some money to blow up children in Scotland to further your case!").
Doesn't matter one whit. If Ulster was flattened, there'd be nothing left to fight over.
The "Brute Force and Ignorance" approach you suggested would only have served to punish the majority of the population, who did not in the least support the terrorists, or the small number that voted in favour of independence.
They still have the choice of moving back to England- or to Southern Ireland. If they don't support the terrorists, they no longer need to be in Northern Ireland.
Withdrawing to please the minority, and to fuck over the the vast majority of the population who are more aligned culturally and economically with the UK than with a much more rural Southern Ireland?
For the UK that's a loss- supporting a foreign colony that doesn't need to be there any more from a strategic standpoint.
The majority who don't want to be in the Euro (and who won't even get a vote in the matter - unless those of us on the mainland) or have their economic fortunes tied to it, that don't want their legislation to be heavily influenced by lobbying from the Roman Catholic church (e.g. divorce was only legalised 10 years ago, abortions are still illegal) and that don't want to be generally fucked over over by what - in the nicest possible way - is still a culturally and economically a more "backward" (for want of a better word) nation.
Then those people should move back to Scotland where their ancestors came from.
The majority who don't want to be in the Euro (and who won't even get a vote in the matter - unless those of us on the mainland) or have their economic fortunes tied to it, that don't want their legislation to be heavily influenced by lobbying from the Roman Catholic church (e.g. divorce was only legalised 10 years ago, abortions are still illegal) and that don't want to be generally fucked over over by what - in the nicest possible way - is still a culturally and economically a more "backward" (for want of a better word) nation.
And that's worth keeping what is essentially a foreign colony on the island, at great expense to the British Taxpayer?
If the inhabitants of Northern Ireland *wanted* unification, they'd be supported by the government fully (those of us in the UK don't mind in the least - it's entirely their business), but they don't, and for very good reason (more so now than ever given the introduction of the Euro).
Then they should stop the occupation and move back to England/Scotland where they belong.
[ FWIW, for those that are interested, I'm generally in favour of a United Ireland and of a single currency in Europe, I'm just not in favour of screwing over the inhabitants of Northern Ireland to impose either of them. ]
Well, neither am I- the crown should offer them land in Scotland to pay them back for Cromwell's Folly.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Randy is a common name I see in the US. In the UK it's slang for someone who is sexually excited.
I don't want to be in the business meeting with our US collegues when Mr.Randy Slapper is introduced...straight faces won't be in it!
I think the biggest issue is that most Christians are part of societies that are more free.
A lot of this outrage we see happening only occurs in countries where protests cannot happen without the government allowing it.
When you are free the outrage tends to be far less violent as you have less fear of showing your dislike.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Also, the tactics Islamic terrorists use make the IRA (who routeinely warned the police to evacuate before the bomb went off) look like newborn kittens. Sorry to bust your Irish pride.
Er the goal wasn't to kill English people, because that gets you invaded. The IRA could have dropped half the politicians in the UK if it took their fancy. The goal was to prevent further atrocities like the bloody sunday massacre, and restore some kind of equality of rights in the north between the catholics and the protestants.
And if blowing people up is a source of pride for you, I'm sure that you can find gainful employment somewhere like pakistan, along the border there.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
The IRA merely wanted Ireland- and since the war with Spain ended, Ireland's usefullness as strategic property has been gone, it was easy to give the IRA what they wanted.
wut. What war with spain? The last time the UK was at war with spain was, christ, the 18th century? Ireland was never useful as a strategic property, unless you planned to invade the US or something. And the IRA only fought over the north; the south, and vast majority, is completely free. And it still remains in UK hands, so the IRA didn't get what they wanted.
So tell us the truth, is the absinthe kicking in yet?
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
think again. has a lot to do with climate and environment.f _normal_puberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty#Variations_o
google for more information.
by the way, let me ask you a question -- in all honesty, don't you think the people of quraysh at that time (the tribe of the Prophet who were trying to shoot him down and stop his message) would have been *more likely* to bring this claim up and attack him for it if it was not a normal thing or that culture and time b/c the girls had reached puberty? it would make plenty of sense to me... plus, why would she have been engaged to a non-muslim idol worshipper a year before the prophet married her?
Callahan akbar!
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Agreed. But we mustn't forget that Christians are guilty of the same thing, with just slightly different methods.
The church-going Bush, who tells us that God is guiding him, calls for us to murder people in the Middle East.
Religion and its leaders can generally be quite dangerous.
-FL
1. Saying other people don't support free speech does not make it right for Muslims to do the same. Austria jailing a person for saying the gas chambers at Auswitch was a hoax is just as bad.
2. "Not only that, but you try to justify it by saying christians don't act the same way." I never said that.
I never claimed a large number of people acted violently or endorsed violence. They simply want to censor free speech that is at odds with their religious beliefs. You seem confused.
3. "Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical Muslim cleric, has said the cartoonist behind caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that have sparked outrage across the Arab world should be tried and executed under Islamic law." Therefore literal interpretation of Muslim laws means executing those for dissent. This means that a moderate Muslim is one who does not follow the practices of his faith to the letter, much like a moderate Christian, or Jew.
Vote for Pedro
This argument is so lame. If being poor make one commit crimes then being rich should make the rich do good things. How do you then explain all of the poor people that do good?
Telecommuting! What about socialization?
This reminds me of a MUD I frequented in college. It had a very restrictive profanity filter, even blanking out "turd". We discovered this once when discussing what we were going to do the coming Sa****ay.
Not just one guy who was senile, but two, likely old guys.
Both of those are reporting stuff sourced from Urwa (Abu Hisham) who was approximately 70 when he wrote it and reportedly senile. Those two authors of sunni hadith actually lived somewhere around 200 years after Urwa's own death.
These two collections are in general regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims"
This statement is misleading - most "authentic" in terms of rules and religious rites (which are the primary 'use' of hadith), but not so much about historical events.
Anyway when talking about Mohammed, since that's alot of conjecture, after the fact writing and since alot of the New Testament was written after the fact and sometimes by odd fellas, Aisha's being underage has as much factual basis as your arguements against it.
I am not sure what the new testament has to do with it, but the basic difference is that the evidence for her being of age is consistent with other reports that are not concerned with her marriage (i.e. no axe to grind) - comments about her age in comparison to her siblings, and her age at certain well defined events that together with simple math strongly suggest that she was not a child bride.
The Sunni believe it
If you ask most sunni, they aren't likely to be aware that there even is a controversy, it seems to be more of an issue manufactured in the west. The average sunni on the street will tell you that she was of appropriate age to marry and then ask you why you would even think otherwise?
If Hadith is untrustworthy, why do muslims keep it and refer to it all the time? If muslims accepts hadiths as true,
They don't accept hadith as truth (divine or otherwise), you are confusing it with the quran. Hadith are primarily guidelines for everyday life and secondarily historical accounts and there is plenty of debate about the merits of all the hadith - some are more respected than others, but none are believed to be perfect or infallible.
Why do we have to make justifications to make Islam sounds like the Religion of Peace?
I dunno, why do people randomly insert flame-bait rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
I tried to resist responding to this, but I really can't help it. It truly bothers me when somebody who knows nothing about the world takes a break from American Idol to try telling someone how the world works.
Did you actually even read the stupid website? I was curious so I checked it out.
He is in favor of stoning all homosexuals to death
No, he's not. Where the heck did you pull this from?
is quite powerful in Kansas city
No, again, he's not. He's a attention-seeking pastor at one church. Somewhat misguided, yes, but CERTAINLY not in favor of killing anyone.
Anyway, your attempt to show one person that characterizes Christianity as incompatible with basic human rights (like Islam) failed. I don't doubt you can find SOME loon out there that makes your point for you -- but the difference is we just witnessed MILLIONS of muslims that resorted to violence over someone expressing their right to freedom of speech. In Africa, 15+ Christian churches were burned down, and several Christians were forced into tyres, drenched in gas, and set ablaze.
Fundamentalist islam is not compatable with Western democracy.
But I'm sure you've already returned to American Idol thinking you just taught the Slashdot crowd a lesson today..
-Fatty
I guess this is out, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Titicaca
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
So, my head is about 5000 degrees celsius right now, and my feet are about -4900 degrees celsius. On average I should be doing pretty well right?
What you're (conveniently) missing is that GDP is an average - you only need a few very, very rich people at the top (eg: oil sheiks or what have you) and you can counterbalance the large quantities of very poor people at the bottom.
Sure, people like Bin Laden have money, but he's not the one flying himself into buildings, is he? It's the poor zealots at the bottom doing that. Of course, being poor isn't an excuse for acts of terrorism - but when you live in a little desert shithole you might not have much to live for (and the Bin Ladens can find those that don't easily enough). If you don't appreciate being destitute, the image of an afterlife where everything is provided will seem more, well, heavenly. More to the point you're probably going to be pretty receptive to someone pointing out how rich "those westerners" are compared to you. And of course these same people (the ones that live in the same country as you, ie: the ones that have your ear most of the time) are never ever going to just "point out" how well off they are.
As for poverty being the root of fundamentalism, I see churches in poor communities all the damn time, and not anywhere near so much as near where I live. Of course, that's anecdotal, so you might not believe me.
WWII was such a different war than the ones that came after it (Vietnam, Iraq, etc.).
Oooh! Oooooh! I know why it was different! It was because the last time Congress declared war was World War II, and every time after that has been the President un-Constitutionally abusing his powers to wage war!
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
"The biggest threat to Islam these days is Muslims."
If Muslims would denounce the actions of fundamentalists that commit crimes against humanity then just maybe non-Muslims wouldn't have such a negative view of Islam.
Instead, either there is silence; or there is defense of the right to take such actions. However, if Christians take such actions then it is an outrage.
When "Piss Christ" (cross in a bottle of urine) was on display in New York, was there an outcry? Of course, but Christian fundamentalists didn't burn down buildings and assault non-Christians because of this. On the other hand, a simple, offensive drawing, causes every Muslim criminal to act like an ass and Arab representatives defend this? It's a good thing no one has put a statuette of Mohammed in a piss jar or certainly there would be a total clash of civilizations.
Anyone know if Salmon Rushdie is still in hiding?
When those that represent Arab leadership are no longer afraid of standing up to the criminals that proclaim to follow the teachings of Islam, and instead condemn the actions of such criminals, then non-Muslims will begin to view Islam differently.
When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual?
Funny, that. I was just reading this. (Armenia was the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion, and has an even higher chunk of Christian population than the United States.)
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
A theological perspective on the difference.
I couldn't believe what ridiculous rhetoric I just read on that website. Trying to compare Jesus to Mohamed and push the idea that somehow one is better than the other isn't just childish, but proliferates the hatred between both religions.
I would make the argument, that there are dangerous views on both sides of the fence here, and it doesn't come down to which theological figure was more humble for crying out loud. Look at Pat Robertson for instance, those guys ideoligies rhetoric, in my opinion, could be considered equaly if not more dangerous than that of an extremist muslim. What it comes down to in my mind is the demographics, and geopolitical disparities of both religions. Considering a large number of Christians live in the rich western world, and in contrast a majority of Muslims live in the impoverished, oppressed, western marginalized middle east, wouldn't you say it's fair to believe that if the tables where turned, it would be Christians martyring in the name of Jesus Christ?
Making something "wrong" is just an association society instills in kids because it doesn't want those kids, as adults, to do something.
Causing pain and killing humans both get an inculcation of "wrong".
When it turns out that you have to do one or the other, you get situations where, instead of thinking the actual issues through, people just follow this brick-stupid gut feeling that's been hammered into them at about age two. Which is kind of depressing.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I've set-up a spamtrap with ALLAH@videotron.ca
The key difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists right now is that Christain fundamentalists typically have a pretty decent quality of life, and Islamic fundamentalists don't.
You're thinking of the US. In the US, Christianity doesn't do much more than impose censorship, misallocate resources, and allow Africans to die of AIDS because condoms offend their sensibilities. As you've pointed out, fat, wealthy people have a lot of inertia to stay where they are.
However, if you want to see Christians and Muslims both bloodily killing each other en masse, you need look no further than Indonesia.
Maybe some readers think that somehow, it was Muslims provoking the whole thing -- I refer them to Ireland, with many years of Christians killing Christians in the same sort of bombings that people look with horror at in the Middle East today.
As for the Crusades, a set of Pope-led invasions and massacres...well.
Christianity has committed many, many atrocities and killings over the years, the same as Islam. Neither religion can claim a moral high ground as regards killings.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Fair enough - although I think per capita GDP is probably pretty misleading when you have a distribution of wealth like Saudi Arabia has. There seem to be indications of significant poverty in Saudi Arabia, and 2004 estimates of unemployment are between 13-25%, which is pretty staggering. It's also worth mentioning that per capita income has dropped dramatically (300%-ish) in the last 20 years, so the case for broad, individual wealth in Saudi Arabia just doesn't seem to be there.
Even so, in the case of the Middle East, I do believe that the gaps in wealth and quality of life are certainly a catalyst for extremism. I'll admit that by itself it doesn't explain the behavior, but I would also argue that you would not see fundamentalism flourish if there were a broad sense of individual wealth. Having a personal stake in your nation's stability (something which we do enjoy in the US) naturally checks radical behavior.
But I do get your point - poverty alone doesn't breed extremists. That much is true, because there are plenty of impoverished nations that don't exhibit fundamentalist behavior. Nonetheless, the (original) point remains (by your own example) that extremist behavior is not characteristic of Muslim nations, and I think the point also remains that, based on their own history, Christians are equally capable of violence and persecution ('yes, but who have we persecuted lately?' doesn't count).
That's not meant to be a dig on either religion - just a candid recognition that people are the same no matter where you go. Given the economic conditions and the degree of religious indoctrination (of Christianity or Islam) you see in the Middle East, I think you could easily work up a violent fundamentalist movement right here in the United States.
If you're referring to Numbers, then that would be the Jewish religion. The old covenant pointed to and then passed away with the coming of the Christ. Christians are under the new covenant found in the New Testament.
Would you please tell the gay-hating Christians that their doctrinal support is two thousand years out of date, then?
(In reality, Christianity hung on to whatever chunks of the Bible most suited it and tied in with social norms. Lots of the Bible is ignored today, but other chunks are still followed.)
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
You stumble over the truth, but quickly regain your balance and move on, undaunted.
You are only human if those that interact with you choose to include you in their social cirle or their family. If all humans you interact with choose not to let you in to either, you will cease to be human. A human without social interaction, friends, family, is not human anymore.
Pity them. But if you don't go out of your way to become their friends, or their family, they are merely animals eating from the trough.
fifth sigma, inc.
Hell, one of the primary tenets of christianity is "thou shall not kill."
Actually, no it isn't; not according to the bible, anyway. The actual commandment is "thou shall not murder," but it has been, unfortunately, mistranslated numerous times in the past. It would be great to see a poll on how many Christians actually know that, though.
I remember reading about an advertising campiag by Wang Computers yeeears ago, that said 'Wang Cares...'. You could even get it on a T-shirt :)
If a religion isn't useful at getting people to love one another and not murder one another, its a failure as a religion. While you can't necessarily judge a religion based upon the actions of its followers, you would have to be an idiot to not draw some empirical evidence from these violent events about the nature of the Islam religion.
Throughout history, religion has been used as a political tool. During the wars of religion in Europe, tens of thousands of Christians slaughtered each other on the basis of Protestantism versus Catholicism. 3 million people died in France's wars of religion. Was that not evil?
The basic thing you fail to realize is that civil unrest is caused by economic, social, and political tension. The Muslim nations have more than their share of these things. The reason Christian societies have outgrown such primitive forms of violence* is because they are, on the whole, mature and economically-sound societies. At times when Muslim societies have had economic parity with Christian ones, their level of civility was quite comparable.
The evidence of history strongly suggests that religion is mostly uncorrelated with the behavior of populations. The Eastern religions are a lot mellower than any of the Semitic ones, yet that never stopped the Chinese and Japanese from having very brutal empires. Heck, Christianity did nothing to mitigate the brutality of the colonial powers either, for that matter.
*) They embrace, of course, more sophisticated and subtle, but ultimately more destructive forms of violence like launching cruise missiles from thousands of miles away...
We know for a fact that Muhammed led troops in war and had multiple wives. Seems wrong to me.
The personal character of Mohammed is something of a red-herring. Mohammed is not divine, he is simply the first leader of the faith. His place in Islam is more comparable to the place of someone like Charlemagne in Christianity rather than Jesus. As for polygamy, that's an anachronistic argument. Sects of Christianity have accepted polygamy up to the last century, and at the time when Mohammed lived, polygamy was well-accepted. I should point out that the Bible doesn't actually make any condemnations of polygamy --- that is a practice that has become part of Christianity as it has evolved.
In Christianity, the man Jesus Christ (Iesous Christos in greek) spoke at great length about how his true disciples should be harmless as doves, turn the other cheek, give, love, and forgive... They are not following the example set by Christ and therefore are committing acts of evil.
You can't just pick and choose the parts of the Bible you like. Yes, Christ said a lot of good things. But Christianity isn't merely the teachings of Christ. It includes everything in the Bible, along with the various accumualted doctrines in the case of Catholicism. There is a lot of distasteful stuff in the rest of the Bible. At the same time, there are many good things in the Quran too, along with several distasteful things.
Killing? obviously evil. no one should do it.
So our soldiers in Iraq are comitting evil acts?
Does it mean I'm gonna go killing fags?
Damn it. Here I thought I was replying to a legitimate post, now I realize I'm just talking to a half-wit.
Two things that have always bothered me about islamic martyrs: 1) unlike Jesus, and Stephen, who were peaceful martyrs killed for their words, islamic martyrs are just suicide bombers.
In theory, Islamic martyrs are
2) the koran says that muslims who martyr themselves will get however many virgins right?
Many respected scholars view that as a mistranslation, pointing out that the original text makes more sense as saying they will recieve "sweet fruits and drink" than virgins. But you will of course believe whatever you want to believe.
but in islam, women are treated as subhuman and worthless, not allowed to have rights.
Women in Islam have
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I was talking to a friend the other day, and trying to figure out a good analogy for the rarity of acts of women raping men. So I say "a women rapist is about as common as... ", and my friend fills in "a black person who doesn't commit crime?" I thought it was pretty funny, and I know he meant it entirely in jest, but I know if I ever said that out-loud in down-town DC, I'd get my ass seriously kicked. Some cartoonist, living in a place with a large and recently-emigrated (read: poor and relativey uneducated) Muslim population, depicted Mohammed as a terrorist. What did he expect? I believe its his right to say what he wishes, but some actions are just ill-advised. If I (I'm India, btw) went into the heart of the Bible Belt and started spouting off what I really thought about Christian conservatives, do you really think I wouldn't get a few death threats?
I agree with you that Muslims need to grow a thicker skin, but pinning the blame on Islam is like saying that black people are easily offended because they are black. It completely takes the cultural element out of the equation. There are a lot of people who can't take a joke, from women to hispanics to blacks to Christians to Arabs. I'd prefer to believe the reasons are cultural rather than the result of their innate tendencies...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
There is something serious sick in Islam today and unless some of their leaders stand up and turn the ship around,
That's really part of the problem. Islam doesn't really have any leaders. There is nobody in charge, and no formal hierarchy. It's mostly just a bunch of mobs controlled by Mullahs with a limited range of influence.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
One church (roman catholic) doesn't like it, most totally dig it since it prevents abortion and it allows more sex while having smaller and cheaper families. The key objection by the catholic church is not to do with abortion, but has to do with the catholic church's objection to non procriative sex, which they see as sinful carnal lust even when practiced between a married couple.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
But seriously, you're joking right? If Christians were like Muslims, all those prominent gay marriage ceremonies a while ago would have been fire-bombed. Or do you think if someone tried to have a prominent, public gay marriage in, say, ANY Muslim country, they would be allowed?
It's not a Christian versus Muslim thing here. It's a rich country versus poor country thing. I'd love to see how a prominent, public gay marriage would go over in 18th century peasant Russia. No firebombs, probably, with that level of technology, but pitchforks would abound.
The real problem is not that we're dealing with Islam, but rather that we're dealing with poor and poorly educated people from culturally-backwards parts of the world. Attacking Islam won't solve anything, it's just a diversion for those who want to take action but don't want to really think about what action will be effective.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
If Muslims would denounce the actions of fundamentalists that commit crimes against humanity then just maybe non-Muslims wouldn't have such a negative view of Islam.
They do, in droves. The mainstream press doesn't consider that newsworthy.
Anyone know if Salmon Rushdie is still in hiding?
No, and he hasn't been for years, even though the Fatwa calling for his execution was re-affirmed last year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_Rushdie.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Regarding 3: You should be aware that radical Muslim clerics make up whatever Islamic laws they want. Their view of Islamic law has no bearing on reality. You're absolutely right, though, that a tolerable Muslim is one who does not follow the practices of his faith to the letter. Of course, the same is true of Christians. A real honest-to-God follow every letter of the Bible Christian would be quite a monstrous person based on our modern standards.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It is wrong to deprive women of freedom of choice over their own bodies...
The same argument could be made for the legalization of drugs...
Stop comparing the true religion of peace with that of murderous thugs.
Hmm, let's make a tally.
Deaths resulting from True Religion of Peace (TM):
Slave trade: 40 million.
French religious wars: 3 million.
Deaths resulting from Religion of Murderous Thugs (TM):
Um, you guys killed 40 million niggers? Shut man, we give up!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
For those not in the know, the Old Testament is written in Hebrew -- not English. The verse in question can be found in Exodus chapter 20, verse 13
The KJV translates the sixth commandment as:
Ex. 20:13 Thou shall not kill
Let's find out why!
(Hebrew transliterations in brackets)
"Not" is from the Hebrew [lo] being a simple or abstract negation
"Kill" is from the Hebrew [ratsach] a primitive root, properly meaning to dash in pieces or more specificly to kill a human being (the accepted intended meaning in this case.)
The whole "thou shall" part comes from (get this) a single letter preceding [ratsach] specificly [tav]. One of the Hebrew words for you (f.sng.)[tav][aleph]
Lets look at the whole thing as found in the majority of Hebrew texts:
[cheth][tsadi][resh][tav][aleph][lamedh]
The verse then, in a painfully literal translation, becomes:
Not You Kill
or, if you prefer:
Not You Murder
This isn't exactly one of those verses that is especially difficult to translate. I don't know why you prefer "murder" to "kill" exactly, but calling it a mistranslation is as absurd as claiming "murder" is the only correct english translation of [ratsach].
It would be great to see a poll on how many Christians actually know that, though.
Required reading for internet skeptics
If there is life after death (which there is) and you can be reborn as a baby. Then in theory, life exists
as a constant for ever, and never can be created, or destroyed, just like matter/energy. And thats what
life does, goes from matter to energy and back.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
There are lots of anti-homosexual verses in the New Testament. AFAIK, Jesus didn't say anything against gay people, but he's really not a major figure in a lot of Christian theology. ;)
They do. All the time. Perhaps you should get on to your local media about the fact that they only show one side of the story.
Sure, people like Bin Laden have money, but he's not the one flying himself into buildings, is he? It's the poor zealots at the bottom doing that. Of course, being poor isn't an excuse for acts of terrorism - but when you live in a little desert shithole you might not have much to live for (and the Bin Ladens can find those that don't easily enough). If you don't appreciate being destitute, the image of an afterlife where everything is provided will seem more, well, heavenly. More to the point you're probably going to be pretty receptive to someone pointing out how rich "those westerners" are compared to you. And of course these same people (the ones that live in the same country as you, ie: the ones that have your ear most of the time) are never ever going to just "point out" how well off they are.
Actually, many of the islamist suicide terrorist we have seen have been fairly well off. Perhaps not billionaires, but definitely well-educated wellfed and decently paid middle class people. That goes for the 9/11 bunch, the London bombers as well as Palestinians.
As for poverty being the root of fundamentalism, I see churches in poor communities all the damn time, and not anywhere near so much as near where I live. Of course, that's anecdotal, so you might not believe me.
Oh, I believe you. But are they fundamentalist? You seem to equate religion with fundamentalism.
What you're (conveniently) missing is that GDP is an average - you only need a few very, very rich people at the top (eg: oil sheiks or what have you) and you can counterbalance the large quantities of very poor people at the bottom.
Even so, I venture to say there are fewer (in relative terms) Saudis below the poverty line than there are Indians (people in India). By far.
However "AOL Scunthorpe ban -wikipedia" turns up over a thousand. So most people discussing this are using a different name for it. Why worry about that?
Probably because statistically speaking, most Westerners and Europeans, (from which Slashdot derives most of its readership), if they hold religious views, are Christians.
Please bear in mind that I didn't actually assume that the poster was a Christian. I half-assumed that s/he was an Atheist who was taking a moment to point out the flaws of Islam in a way which seemed rather to lean in a racist direction. All assumption, of course, so I made certain that when I posted my response, it was worded in an open way which might simply include that possibility among others.
If Islam can not stand on it's own than it should not stand. If the best thing you can do to defend Islam is to bash Christians than it's a weak religion.
Huh? I wasn't defending Islam. I think Islam, like all religions, is misguided.
It's odd that on slashdot we have people bashing Christians for so much as protesting or boycotting some media (which is legal) but a Muslim kills someone in the name of defending Islam it's suddenly the fault of Christians? Come on. This is out of hand!
No it's not. Christians are fools, so they're worth bashing until they wake up. --Whether their foolery is aimed at boycotting some media, or declaring war on non-Christian nations, or giving billions of dollars to Israel because their bible is filled with obscure game-rules, Christians are fools. And because we have to deal with millions of them over here in the West, THEY are the ones we need to bash. It's somebody else's job to bash the religious fools living in other nations. Taking care of one's local responsibilities, and all that.
Ah, Christians! They love to wrap their napalm in a veil of righteous denial and fake love. Kind of like a trip to Disneyland, they put reality on hold. But guess what? Women and children still get set on fire. What would Jesus do?
-FL
lots?
The primary complaint is basically that what gets translated to "homosexuality" was pederasty, which is the sort of relationship that Socrates or NAMBLA would advocate -- a boy and a man, not two men.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Andrew Sullivan is linking to this story, but only the most basic research shows it to be fales. Here's my research.
Remember the church opposed masturbation since it was spilling seed. They also are against many forms of birth control.
They were somewhat logically consistent. And already in line with the thought that a preventing a conception that would have otherwise naturally occured is roughly the same ethically as killing the unborn.
(What they didn't know is that if you don't use the seed it dies fairly quickly anyway).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
But actually I don't believe any of that crap (thus the irony). I have jewish and atheist and lesbian friends, and my children often invite their muslim friends to our house to play.
The mockery was probably not productive, but sometimes I just can't resist. Sorry.
The church had strong objections to "spilling your seed" through masturbation and has to birth control. I'm not coming out of left field here.
I don't personally believe either. I believe abortion is unresolvable but should definately be allowed in some cases and up to some point even if the mother's life is not in danger. I think we have millions of starving, dying children who are already alive that we should work on first.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
In response, Germany and Japan both came out to fight. The small handful of terrorists are in hiding.
Consider, vertinox, if you and I had a disagreement, and we were going to come to blows. Then, I show up on the street in front of your residence and you come out to meet me. Our fight should not take very long.
Now in contrast, consider that you have threatened my life and go into hiding in . Finding you will will take much longer.
In response, Germany and Japan both came out to fight. The small handful of terrorists are in hiding.
Well, obviously.
But we shouldn't call it a damn war then. Call it a man hunt and put a team of 1,000 special agents on the case, but we don't need a mobilization of an entire nation and changes to our way of life to hunt down 5 guys in a cave.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Yahoo! is no longer banning screen names with Allah in them. I just registered "allahforpresident" and "iamtheallah" without any trouble. (After all, I did not want to register anything offensive...)
Thinking about it, no there is a distinct difference between kissing your wife and either having sex with birth control or male masturbation unless you ejaculate when you kiss your wife.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
We are talking about a philosophical point. It doesn't matter if -most- pregnancies don't end in death today. The point is that if -one- pregnancy will end in death for both the mother and child and we were under "no abortion under any circumstances" then the result would be the death of both.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Look up the taking of Jerusalem by Godfrey and Tancred in 1099. Men, women, children of all faiths indiscriminately slaughtered in the name of Christ the Conqueror. You might also contrast the historical record of Islam in this regard (Sal-al-din being the most famous example of medieval chivalry, after all).
You might also want to read up on Charlemagne and the doctrine of "conversion by the sword". Or a personal favorite, Father de la Casas' Short Account of the Destruction of the West Indies.
How, exactly, did you think Europe and the Americas got to be christian?
2 big hints: Knives. Necks.
the goal of homosexuals is to enforce gay rights on the entire world.
Such as the right to not be gay-bashed? Why is this a bad thing? Is the right to gay-bash something that Muslims can't imagine living without?
They are everything that a conservative Christian fears about liberal democrats except one-hundred times worse.
I think liberal democrats are worse than conservative Christians -- primarily for their bone-headed defense of Islam. I see conservative Christians as my allies since they seem at least dimly aware of the threat that Muslims pose to all of the non-Muslims in the world.
Gays will lie about their plans and desires in accordance with the homosexual agenda.
Perhaps if there were a "gay mohammed" and a "gay quran" and some "gay hadiths" to back up your statement then it would be convincing. Oh wait, those things *do* exist for Muslims. Not to mention their bomb-strapping, rioting, car-burning behavior.
I encourage you look up the gay concept of "ACT UP" which indicates why all agreements made with homosexuals are useless.
I suppose my express distancing of myself from those fags was completely lost on you.
The more straight people (that's you and I) who wake up to the threat to our life, liberty, and property the greater chance we have of the world not becoming one big gay empire.
Yet you can't indicate what threats to life, liberty, and property are posed to anyone by any such "gay agenda". Shari'a, on the other hand, is a mainstream and liberty-crushing belief among millions of muslims. Your post is yet another sad attempt at "tu quoque" which is the most that freedom-hating Muslims can muster when someone starts making simple observations about their primitive and barbaric superstitious beliefs.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
As an atheist, you offer the position that there is no all-powerful god. Lack of belief still makes you a believer. Atheism and theism are right up there alongside one another -- there's no difference between them whatsoever.
You rely on the same flawed argument that many logic-impaired Christian debators do. You are imposing upon me a belief that I do not hold. I am not a positive atheist ("I believe there is no god."). I am a negative athiest ("I do not believe in a god.")
Likewise, I do not believe in gods. Or godessess. Or lephrechauns. Or Santa Claus. Or in humans living on Jupiter. This is not to say that none of these things exist. It is only that I have not seen sufficient evidence in order to make me belief.
Your god may very well be real. In which case, I say: PROVE IT!
And that's when you reply, "Oh, but you have to have faith!"
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Since when did I wish that America was as harsh on gays as the Islamic world was? Or are you claiming that I wish the Islamic world was as soft on gays as America is? Either way, you're wrong.
I am thankful that America has become a much better place for gays to live and that many anti-gay sentiments are dying. I do not support gay marriage. I support the separation of marriage and state and thus the termination of special rights for straights.
My wish for the islamic world is far simpler: less is more.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
... "I don't *usually* bother discussing with Muslims."
I've actually gone out on a limb and chosen to debate a couple of Muslims on this board. It's interesting to say the least to see what they do.
1. "Christianity does the same thing!" (change the subject)
2. "Western culture is just as bad!" (tu quoque)
And, as I predicted, I can't tell if they're lying or not. They all seem to have different opinions on the exact circumstances which indicate that it's permissible for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim, but they all seem to agree that there are, at least, *some* instances where it is permissable to do so.
And none of them speak out against Muslim violence. The "behead those who insult Islam" threat signs carried by Muslims during the cartoon jihad are, evidently, completely unobjectionable to them. Perhaps they are completely unaware of the hideous image problem they have.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I love your "log cabin republican" type posts. I show them to my conservative christian relatives and they become enlightened.
I don't suppose you've ever considered actually getting to know some Muslims - y'know, like having them over to dinner or something? Maybe have a little jew-bashing session with the local Farrakhan supporters? Please don't, you might be unable to form any more argumentum ad metum (gee, I can use fancy latin too!) once you've actually met some of the people you are so anxious to demonize.
I can invent up some threats to life, liberty and property to attribute to homosexuals if you really want me too. Or I can just parrot other people's hatemongering propaganda the way you keep doing - which do you prefer?