Slashdot Mirror
Egypt Arrests More Bloggers
2think writes "The BBC is reporting that after bloggers highlighted recent public sexual harassment within view of Egyptian police, the government of Egypt has been arresting bloggers." From the article: "The most recently detained blogger, Abdel Kareem Nabil, was detained in Alexandria on 6 November and was charged with disrupting public order, inciting religious hatred and defaming the president. Amnesty International says Mr Amer appeared to have been detained for expressing critical views about Islam and Egypt's al-Azhar religious authorities."
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
My blog
It should be no surprise that countries with little or no protection of free speech are arresting people for their comments online. Many bloggers use their real names (or make it easy for police to trace them. The people who would be arrested for public dissent should not be surprised if they are arrested for dissent online ... I would hope that many of these people relish the thought of being arrested for blogging, as it sometimes creates worldwide recognition to their cause or their plight.
... it's not like governments are quick to catch up with technical trends.
It certainly seems that blogger arrests are on the rise, such as the recent Greek blogger arrested for content he didn't write, and the constant string of arrested bloggers and other internet users in China (such as documentary filmmaker Hao Wu). This is probably an indication that Governments are just now learning about the influence commanded by a popular blogger rather than a change in policies around the globe
Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
...that everybody had the mustached man asking them to meet them in a dark alley...
Read Subject
Sometimes when this sort of story pops up, I wonder whether our kneejerk reaction to defend the blogger is a combination of our values of Freedom of Speech and antipathy towards Islam. That the blogger was anti-Islam seems to be totally irrelevant since Egypt is a secular state (much like Turkey). Are the reporters using Western anti-Islamic sentiment to shape and color our views regarding this particular event? When I see an article demanding that I declaim a country's police force, I have to wonder what sort of forces are at work behind the propaganda.
A quick check of the nickname Ayyoub shows that the original Tareq Ayyoub was a reporter at al Jazeera who was killed by American missiles when the station was struck during the invasion of Baghdad. It's a short jump to see that someone fanning anti-American sentiment would take the same name for the purpose of rabble rousing. Who stands to gain the most from such anti-Westernism in the West? The socialist party. A quick check shows that this Ayyoub blogger is a radical socialist. How's that for a coincidence?
Anyway, if you defend this guy, you're being played like a fiddle by the very forces that seek to destroy Western culture. Happy defending, Free Speechnauts!
Egypt is one of those countries which has a horrible human rights records that you rarely hear about in the United States because they have been allies with our government. In other words, our media and government normally look the other way at the human rights abuses in Egypt. You can listen to a very informative interview here about an attorney in the United States who has been imprisoned for helping a prisoner to communicate with political allies in Egypt.
If blogging, like voting, could actually change anything, it would be illegal.
Wait for it, folks...
Egypt shouldn't be arresting bloggers. They should be arresting furries.
My question is why do they arrest them? Don't they know that the more the people are suppressed the more they rebel?
This clearly demonstrates the fact that islamists hate the free flow of ideas and, much like our christians, hate the fact that somewhere, someone is saying something which doesn't fit into their sky ghost cosmology.
I've never heard of Christians beheading people- though this response does seem mild in comparison to what other Islamic sects do.
It's savages like them and like the christian right who are going to plunge the world into the next dark age (we've already got the tools for an inquisistion set up in gitmo, syria and egypt).
I say we're already in a dark age- an age where spirituality has been forgotten in favor of secularism- forcing some of Pope Benedict XVI's "irrational extremeists" he's always preaching against to rise up in rebellion. Face facts- the reason why Islamic terrorism is so popular is precisely because atheists have become common.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"...and was charged with disrupting public order, inciting religious hatred and defaming the president."
All we need now is a set of 8 X 10 glossies, some turkey stuffing and a gang of father-rapers.
Face it - if a pair of handcuffs have your name on them, you're going downtown and the charges only have to stick for as long as it takes to throw you in the back of the paddy wagon. Once they find out how this all works, they'll put this guy, or someone like him, on their payroll with those otherwise shady tactics working for their own purposes.
Also top-posters please.
"I've never heard of Christians beheading people- though this response does seem mild in comparison to what other Islamic sects do."
That is becose it did happen about 1500 years ago, during a period called the dark ages. But just few centuries ago, Christans where under the heal of the Church, that did ban sience and ideas that where agenst the bible. You don't have to look any futuren then 19th century too see that type of ignorance.
*insert global warming/pirates comment here*
I've never heard of Christians beheading people- though this response does seem mild in comparison to what other Islamic sects do.
Nevermind that whole crusades thing...
Face facts- the reason why Islamic terrorism is so popular is precisely because atheists have become common.
That's a subjective, self-serving, bullshit statement if I've ever heard one.
That is becose it did happen about 1500 years ago, during a period called the dark ages.
Hmm, I look back at the records of that period, and I see secular governments doing the beheadings....not the Church. Sorry.
But just few centuries ago, Christans where under the heal of the Church, that did ban sience and ideas that where agenst the bible.
What is sience? The Catholic Church was the patron of science, which was originally the search for a "second scripture" in "natural law". The Bible has never been the end-all-be-all of Catholic Church teaching- that's a lie from the reformation wars in England, and adherant of which wrote the English biography of Galileo and left out some important bits.
You don't have to look any futuren then 19th century too see that type of ignorance.
Well, true to a certain extent- if you listen to heresies like Sola Scriptura Protestantism.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Nevermind that whole crusades thing...
Which was started by the military expansion of Islam after General Mohammed figured out that a common morality and belief system was important for troop morale.
That's a subjective, self-serving, bullshit statement if I've ever heard one.
Not at all- listen to an Islamic street preacher sometime. It's the immorality and amorality of western culture, and the atheism of socialists, that forms the very basis of the hatred for infidels today. Of course, you're too smart to actually listen to what your enemies are saying, aren't you?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
living here..it's quite common to see Al-Azhar ridiculed, mostly due to the current status of the religious institution in being submissive to governmental pressure. The government is also ridiculed all the time, including in major papers/media. It's just certain people you can't talk about, like the big man at the top. Like any dictatorship, a line is drawn between that which is pretended to be freedom and that which cannot be tolerated by those who engineer the whole thing.
As for Islam: I don't see why he had to bring religion into this. Rape is punishable by death in Islam, and the religion enjoys extreme loyalty from the people even though they may not be religious in practice. I would agree with detaining this man for his own safety.
Some of the founders didn't want a bill of rights. They were completely fine with the rights idea, they were just afraid that people would decide it was an exhaustive list or get the idea that the government grants rights.
*insert random comment about petrodollar free traitorism here*
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I've never heard of Christians beheading people- though this response does seem mild in comparison to what other Islamic sects do.
Guildford
Fifth of October.
1974.
I felt like having a pint.
Enough said.
So, to summarize your argument,
This guy:
Has a screenname that happens to also be part of the name of someone America killed, as confirmed by "a quick check"
Is a socialist, as confirmed by "a quick check"
Is being persecuted for criticizing the "secular state" of Egypt
ergo, he's part of some propaganda machine seeking to destroy Western culture on behalf of a socialist agenda.
Nevermind the fact that he's being detained without any given reason. Nevermind that Al-Azhar is very much not a secular institution.
Clearly, free speech has gone too far. We wouldn't want to engage the wrath of those big bad socialists by standing up for this rabble rouser!
>Face facts- the reason why Islamic terrorism is so popular is precisely because atheists have become common.
Nothing to do with the fact that we arm and support tyrannical governments that violate Islamic laws about giving people trials before punishing them?
I only had too look at thease link to find out a diffrent thing from what you say.
m l
http://www.tabula-rasa.info/DarkAges/Timeline1.ht
http://www.medieval-life.net/life_main.htm
In the dark ages government depended on the church. The church excommunicates you, you lost all power. Science didn't progress as it couldn't be afforded. And when it did progress the church viewed it as a threat to the combination of Aristotle and Christianity that Church doctrine was at the time.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
...to 1984
That's not a beheading- and it was a response to an invasion, not a matter of morals or faith.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Both of those are infected by the original propaganda. I suggest going for original sources instead. But you'll need to learn Latin to read them.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This is not america? Well I object to that bias! That cannot be right!
Here is the type of incident they have been blogging about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2SGamUeMec
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
the reason why Islamic terrorism is so popular is precisely because atheists have become common.
Congratulations for the brilliant non sequitur, sir. Not only did you manage to pull atheism completely out of the blue, but you also managed to use it to contradict yourself. I am nothing compared to you.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
> I say we're already in a dark age- an age where spirituality has been forgotten in favor of secularism.
Good.
In the dark ages government depended on the church. The church excommunicates you, you lost all power.
Then why did the French move the center of the Church to Avalon, if Rome was so powerful? Why did the Spanish hold Inquisitions against the will of Rome, if excommunication of powerful kings was so easy? Best yet, how did Henry VIII kick the Church out of England and name himself, in essence, the Pope, if the Church were so powerfull?
Science didn't progress as it couldn't be afforded.
Funny, Copernicus had no problem getting his heliocentric theory published- he was even rewarded for it.
And when it did progress the church viewed it as a threat to the combination of Aristotle and Christianity that Church doctrine was at the time.
And yet, other famous figures than Galileo had no problem getting THEIR works published. Something tells me you're only seeing one side of the story.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
They were still hanging Catholics in Minnesota about 100 years ago because they weren't the correct flavor of Xian. And let's not forget how many Xians found Native Americans fair game.
I hate sigs, and refuse to have one.
Nothing to do with the fact that we arm and support tyrannical governments that violate Islamic laws about giving people trials before punishing them?
That's upper crust thinking- I'm talking about the street preachers who recruit the terrorists to begin with. To them, it's the infidels threatening their daughter's virginity with immoral and immodest clothing, the idea of anybody other than God making law, and the idea that the best infidel is a dead infidel. A different Koran than you've read, I'm sure- but that's how fundamentalists think, in verses taken out of context.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"Hmm, I look back at the records of that period, and I see secular governments doing the beheadings....not the Church. Sorry" the only secular government that was doing beheadings was the french, and that wasn't untill the 1700's. until then government was completely dominated by the church. get your facts straight.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Islam is 1/6th the planet's population. EXTREME Islam, the type we're fighting against, is a mere 10% of that- maybe 10 million strong. To them, secularism is everybody in the United States- we're all atheists to them- 300 million strong. And that's not even counting Europe. Do you see why they MIGHT feel a bit threatened?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Egypt is one the "moderate" arab countries, always eager to support USA in all of their cowboy adventures in the middle east. In return of that, they don't get "democratized" a la Iraq. Oh, the hipocrisy!!
I don't have a sig.
"Hmm, I look back at the records of that period, and I see secular governments doing the beheadings....not the Church. Sorry" the only secular government that was doing beheadings was the french, and that wasn't untill the 1700's. until then government was completely dominated by the church. get your facts straight.
What about the Spanish in the 1300s? What about King Herod for that matter, beheading John the Baptist? Or all of those martyrs in the first 200 years? In fact, I can find no time that the Church so dominated Government that the death penalty was completely abolished- despite it being against Canon Law all along (which is why the Inquisition outside of Rome was illegal).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"To much idiocy does not mean too many idiots, but too few idiots." You?
I hate sigs, and refuse to have one.
Let's think about that:
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/islamcult.html
Isn't that the basic idea of democracy? That many idiots can rule better than few idiots?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Face facts- the reason why Islamic terrorism is so popular is precisely because atheists have become common.
You're offering this nonsense as "facts"?
Ultimately, Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism is an explosion of resentful rage against the success of Western civilization (e.g. the prosperity of Israel built out of a small non-oil-bearing corner of the desert).
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
I'm a strong supporter of rights to free speech, and I was really reading the thread in preparation of making a comment on how this incident in Egypt is an excellent example of how "hate speech" (in the example, the allegation of 'inciting religious hatred') can be used to arbitrarily curtail speech. This could easily happen in the U.S. in Europe; anyone who "rocks the boat" or causes controversy or offends someone else could find themselves slapped with a 'hate speech' violation.
However, with that said, I don't think it's right or proper to restrict what private organizations, compromised of individuals by their own free association (specifically, not unions or other groups into which membership is mandatory for some people), do within their own organization. If you say something critical of an organization you're in, and they decide to censure you / throw you out, that's their business and yours. Unless there's some contract between them and you, so that it would become a contract-law dispute, I don't see that there's a public interest in regulating that. (Although I could see carving out exceptions for whistle-blowers, but even then I'm not convinced, since that could be done anonymously: if you do it publicly so as to take credit, although you shouldn't be punished, I'm not sure you should necessarily be shielded from the company letting you go, either.)
So if some blogger revealed privileged information in his blog, and as a result his party tossed him out, that's not a free speech issue. The government didn't come down on him -- if it had, then I'd have a problem with it. There is a right to association which is important, in addition to the right to free speech: if you say that groups cannot control their own membership, then you cheapen and chip away at the right to association, by making membership a meaningless concept. People have a right to associate -- and disassociate themselves -- with and from whomever they choose, for whatever reasons they choose, unless there is a very compelling public interest in regulating it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Already learned. Direct me to these original sources?
Both the Avalon moving-thing and Henry VIII was waaaay out of the Dark Ages. Hell, Henry VIII was easily in the Renaissance. Both were in times of great strife within the Church.
Any proof of the Church holding the inquisition against Rome's will?
Anyways, Copernicus feared persecution for the heliocentric theory; hence, he published it on his deathbed. Galileo was put into house arrest for life. Both were also in the Scientific Revolution, which was pretty much what it means, literally- scientific revolution.
Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
why don't you try backing that up?
What's going on here? Not a single comment blaming this on the Iraq war? Nobody trying to tell us that the US is a much worse police state? Wow. Must be an off-day for the slashdot trolls.
"Islam is 1/6th the planet's population."
.10 = 100 million.
6.6 billion / 6 = 1 billion
"EXTREME Islam, the type we're fighting against, is a mere 10% of that- maybe 10 million strong"
1 billion *
You were off by a factor of 10. Considering there were only 80 million Germans in 1939 that is a massive amount of "EXTREME Islam" types.
My point is that Egypt, like many other countries "The West" criticizes, has much bigger issues to deal with than freedom of speech.
I agree with all your points, right up until you said this. I don't think that any of the other issues that you mentioned, are necessarily more important than freedom of speech. If anything, freedom of speech is their biggest issue, and in order to secure that, they'd need to fix the rest of their government: because a corrupt government generally isn't conducive to a free society (because corrupt governments generally hate when people point out how corrupt they are). Corruption and lack of freedom go hand-in-hand.
Conversely, a major step towards fixing all those other problems you mentioned, would be more government transparency, and a freer civil society. Cleanup and restoration of a free society also go together.
They're not separate issues. Freedom of speech shouldn't be minimized as an issue, because other parts of the government are equally fucked.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I wonder if many Protestant Europeans tried to help the Catholics in Catholic countries who spoke out publicly about the Catholic Church's Inquisition.
The media was much more direct and local (mostly word of mouth, except the church sermons and monarch's decrees), the population smaller, the expectations of free expression and even justice much lower.
But people were still people. I wonder how much more support people in places like Egypt get from freer people outside, proportionately, than in similar situations elsewhere in the past.
If there are records of parallel situations in different times/places, I'd like to know how they turned out.
--
make install -not war
I've never heard of Christians beheading people- though this response does seem mild in comparison to what other Islamic sects do.
Islam is today where Christianity was a little over 500 years ago; it takes itself *way* too seriously.
They've lost their sense of humor and perspective. They just need to lighten up a bit.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
You do realize that bloggers can be arrested for "inciting religious hatred" in any number of so-called western democracies, right?
The Egyptian government was embarrassed, but its response was to completely deny the incident and censor its press from reporting it. Hence, the outrage came out in the blogs. Note that this happened almost 4 weeks ago on Oct 24 and it's just NOW starting to come out. The government has also taken the stance that the bloggers are trying to "humiliate" Egypt and Islam by talking about the incidence and that's why they are persecuted. Please read these articles for more information
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/world/africa/15c airo.html
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=56301& SelectRegion=Middle_East
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/10/30/the-eid-sexua l-harassment-incident/
"Rape is punishable by death in Islam"
And yet recently in Pakistan (a strongly Islamic nation), the government ordered a sentence of rape (by multiple rapists) to be carried out against a woman. Last time I knew, this group of men had not been sentenced to death.
Where were you when the voynix came?
That the blogger was anti-Islam seems to be totally irrelevant since Egypt is a secular state ...
I agree about anti-Islamic sentiment fueling a knee jerk reaction but didn't Egypt pass an amendment to its constitution in 1980 that prohibits any law that contravenes the prevailing principles of Islamic Law
Doesn't sound too secular to me. But then again I suppose you could say the same thing about a lot of countries. UK law prohibits Catholics from being monarchs, for example.
"civilized peoples around the world that don't value free speech- and even see such freedoms as a danger to civilization itself."
Then we have to wonder if such fascists (who deny such a basic human right) can even be called civilized.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I guess we should get rid of all the atheists, because that's what our enemies want, right? But wouldn't that mean "the terrorists have won"?
In any case, you are pretty off-the-planet with that argument. Muslim extremists hate Jews (and Christians, for that matter) more than they hate atheists. Also, there aren't very many atheists in the world - most of the world is religious, and nearly all countries are led by politicians with religious values.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I call bullshit. Post some examples.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I'm now convinced that America has no friends in the middle east- only trading partners controlled by the enemy of us all, the petroleum corporations.
Of course America has no "friends" in the Middle East, at least not unless you count Israel. But why should we? I don't mean this in terms of 'america is evil, blah blah blah,' but in terms of what, exactly, do Americans and most people in the Middle East (Muslims in particular) have in common, in terms of political philosophy? Precious little, at least from where I'm sitting.
A secular government, where religious freedom is taken for granted, and the government draws its power and legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and not from a mandate from God, is one of the cornerstones of Western society. Every schoolchild in the U.S. can (or at least, should) be able to tell you that the separation of Church and State is one of the keys to our whole system.
If you went to most places in the Middle East and asked average people about their thoughts on religious freedom, I'm not sure that you would find wide support for governments that didn't base themselves on religion. In the same way that a secular government is just assumed in the West, I think in the Mideast (excepting Israel, which is for all intents and purposes Western), an asecular quasi-theocracy would just as easily be assumed. A government that didn't recognize and allow for some form of Sharia law or have an Islamic-derived constitution would be a non-starter in many places.
Expecting these two philosophies to coexist as "friends" is ridiculous. They're not compatible, nor reconcilable: they begin from radically different assumptions about the function and place of religion and government. Barring a few million Muslim people waking up one day and deciding that, yes, religion should definitely take a back-seat to government, the U.S. will never have any "friends" in the Muslim world: it cannot. At most, the East and West ought to be able to tolerate and trade peaceably with each other, agreeing to disagree in public while probably scorning the other afterwards in private, and hopefully finding common ground on particular issues of mutual geopolitical advantage.
But expecting the U.S. to ever have a relationship, as a nation, with Jordan or Saudi Arabia, as it does with Great Britain or Israel is silly. It's not going to happen: Western nations are just much closer to each other on a host of fundamental political and philosophical issues.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Nobody will expect... the Spanish Inquisition... I know, no beheadings, but thumbscrews, the rack, drowning, all in a day's work. Look to the Puritans in our own country: no beheadings, but they were the first to use germ warfare on the North American continent, giving smallpox infested blankets to a Wampanoag village in 1637, then moving into their town (with its conveniently plowed & planted fields) once the natives were dead. You don't have to learn Latin for this one, sonny Jim: Mather the elder gave special thanks in a public address: "The good hand of God favoured our beginnings in sweeping away the multitudes of the Natives by the small pox." Loving, Christian God, that, no?
"Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
You've clearly got the moronic trolling quota all tied up.
It's the immorality and amorality of western culture, and the atheism of socialists, that forms the very basis of the hatred for infidels today
Don't forget the jewishness of jews, the hinduness of hindus, and the christianess of christians. I'd suspect they also hate the buddhaness of buddhism, but I'd personally find it hard to hate a religion with such a cheerful chubby guy as a symbol.
The extremists want to exterminate everything that isn't as extreme as they are, which is why they have no qualms killing off other Muslims (after all, the Muslims in the twin towers were sinners for working in America and got what they deserved along with the infidels, don'tcha know?). They want religious rule where the religion is their extreme version of Islam, with no space for others, even those who would "claim" to worship the same god yet dare to speak up when a man exercises his god-given right to stone his daughter.
Please make the acquaintance of the stories of Anne Boleyn, Marie Antoinette, and Monsieur Robespierre.
Of course, there's also burning people alive.
I'm sure that (most) modern Christians would be appalled at what has been done by their co-religionists in the past.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
You make a lot of assumptions about what I do and don't know, and what actions I will and won't take.
News Flash: projecting your own foot-dragging apathy on the rest of the world isn't very productive.
I'd agree with your first statement (to some extent) - Islam is today where Christianity was a little over 500 years ago;, but not with your second - it takes itself *way* too seriously.
It's not a case of them "taking their religion too seriously", it's a case of their religion and their state becoming seriously intertwined. In the West, we had that under the catholic church (and to a lesser extent, some other denominations). The problem when you have church and state together, is that when someone criticises the church, it has an impact on someone's political power. It's that - the threat to power - that makes leaders repress their people.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
This is not a slam against any religion in particular. ALL of them have periods were being raped is a crime punishable by death. Just that fortunally most of them have been reduced to curiousty with their freaks locked in empty churches/temples/whatever except for Islam.
What's an Xian?
Modern islam has no sense of humor and no perspective.
When I was a kid at school, I once used the epithet 'son of a bitch' to another kid who, as I discovered, was a Muslim.
The phrase was so offensive to him that this started a war. A very serious war.
It turns out that dogs gave the prophet away when he was trying to sneak back into Mecca, so by implying that his mother was a bitch I was implying that he was a dog and hence a betrayer of the prophet. This was enough for him to risk life and limb over.
Thats whay I mean by 'way too seriously'.
It wasn't always this way; google for stories of the mullah Nasruddin. Were he alive today he'd be lynched.
A lovely story by way of example:
Mullah Nasruddin had saved up to buy a new shirt. He went to a tailor's shop, full of excitement. The tailor measured him and said, "Come back in a week, and -- if Allah wills -- your shirt will be ready."
The Mullah contained himself for a week and then went back to the shop. "There has been a delay. But -- if Allah wills -- your shirt will be ready tomorrow."
The following day Nasruddin returned. "I am sorry," said the tailor, "but it is not quite finished. Try tomorrow, and -- if Allah wills -- it will be ready."
"How long will it take," asked the exasperated Nasruddin, "if you leave Allah out of it?"
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
" Why did the Spanish hold Inquisitions against the will of Rome" hah yeah right. "And yet, other famous figures than Galileo had no problem getting THEIR works published." nice work completely ignoring the argument. obviously if you published something that didn't contridict the church you would never run into a problem. you are just stating the obvious and pointing to it as if it validates your opinion, which it doesn't.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
you are taking events which happened 100's of years apart and trying to force them into the incorrect time frame to fit your argument. It's a historical fact covered by even the most basic history book that the church completely dominated politics in europe for the period commonly known as the dark ages. Now crawl back into your hole and say no more you ignoramous.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
in other islamic countries those bloggers would have been beheaded and their families killed.
lovely religion
There are lots of countries on this planet that pretend they have adopted Democracy and western values, but their internal affairs prove they haven't.
The one thing that holds those countries back is religion. Religion is a prison in those countries: it does not let you think on your own.
The real battle is not to fight for free speech, but to fight religions...
Link
Josh Wolf?
Apparently, according to one of the people being interviewed, there is very high unemployment amongst young men in Egypt at the moment. This leads them to gather in large groups with nothing to do. Also, because sex before marriage is forbidden under Islamic law, and none of them can afford to pay dowries (being unemployed) they ain't gettin any !
None of this excuses the behaviour, but mobs of young horny men behave much the same way the world over.
I wish I could link to some audio, but the BBC World Service site is not search friendly (at least when searching for content of audio).
Aah ha - found a similar news story in text here.
Modern islam has no sense of humor and no perspective.
That might be so; I wasn't really arguing that point, I don't know enough about Islam to do so. The main point I was making was that most modern religions "take themselves seriously"; it's just that what they take seriously isn't generally as confrontational as that which Islam does.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt
3521 International Ct. NW
Washington DC 20008
Phone (202) 895 5400
Fax (202) 244 5131
Email: embassy@egyptembdc.org
668: Neighbour of the Beast
During the crusades, it was said that the entry of the Christian knights into Jerusalem left so many dead that no Muslim/Jewish man woman or child escaped in some towns, and the bloodflow was so high there was, literally, a small river of it. Beheadings are nothing to what they did. The crimes committed there will never be forgotten.
I'm quoting Bill Clinton on the last line, during a speech he gave after 9/11.
Of course fighting religions worked so well for Stalin...
> I say we're already in a dark age- an age where spirituality has been forgotten in favor of secularism
For someone with your username, you obviously don't know too much about Marxism!
"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again". -- Karl Marx
And how the fuck is this a flamebait?
religions should be fought not by the sword, but by education and science...
P.S. Did I mention that you're a fat fuck? Seriously, the Bible says that God is not cool with that. Your folds of fat will be frying like smelly, rancid bacon in hell.
Ultimately, Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism is an explosion of resentful rage against the success of Western civilization (e.g. the prosperity of Israel built out of a small non-oil-bearing corner of the desert).
Yes- and what exemplifies Western Civilization above all else? SECULARISM.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Well, you could start with the Vatican Library. The Congregation for Doctrine of Faith is nothing if not meticulous record keepers- the complete trial of Galileo is availabe at your local monastery trading library.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Any proof of the Church holding the inquisition against Rome's will?
No, but there's a great deal of proof of the Spanish Crown holding the inquisition against Rome's will. Especially when it came to treatment of the Jews.
Anyways, Copernicus feared persecution for the heliocentric theory; hence, he published it on his deathbed. Galileo was put into house arrest for life. Both were also in the Scientific Revolution, which was pretty much what it means, literally- scientific revolution.
Galileo's "House Arrest for life" was pretty damn luxurious- I hope to be arrested for my views in that way someday, gaining a patronage for my research.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Even I know the difference between the 19th and 21st centuries! The pendulum swings- right now it's against religion, back then it was for it. Ted
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You were off by a factor of 10. Considering there were only 80 million Germans in 1939 that is a massive amount of "EXTREME Islam" types.
You're right- that's a *VERY* scary thought.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I've never heard of Christians beheading people- though this response does seem mild in comparison to what other Islamic sects do.
I think the traditional Christian methods are burning at the stake, drowning, and stoning. They were practiced widely until the rise of secular society in the West finally put a lid on the most egregious religious excesses (fairly recently, historically speaking).
In order to have a stable nation, it is necessary to have either freedom of speech or a non-democratic government.
Free speech without the right not to be arbitrarilly detained or tortured is only the right to scream.
Yes- and what exemplifies Western Civilization above all else?
Success. That, as I said, is why the envious hate us.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Thank you. And as an encore- I'm going to reverse myself entirely and encourage everybody to listen to This Guy's podcasts from Iraq and read his blog this Thanksgiving- An atheist in a foxhole- well, more like an atheist mechanic in the back of a bunker that F16s launch out of that swears by the God he does not believe in, but it gives you a much better idea of what we *should* be fighting for and what we're *not* fighting against. He's home now....thank the God he does not believe in, alive.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.