Slashdot Mirror
Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech
Two stories in the news offer contrasting approaches by Web companies to
questions of free speech. First YouTube: reader skraps notes that the Google
property has recently banned the popular atheist commentator Nick
Gisburne. Gisburne had been posting videos with logical arguments
against Christian beliefs; but when he
turned his attention to Islam (mirror of Gisburne's video by another
user), YouTube pulled the plug, saying: 'After being flagged by members
of the YouTube community, and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below
has been removed due to its inappropriate nature. Due to your repeated
attempts to upload inappropriate videos, your account now been
permanently disabled, and your videos have been taken down.' Amazon.com
provides a second example of how to react to questions of free speech.
Reader theodp sends along a story in
TheStreet.com about how Amazon hung up
on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of
selling animal-fighting magazines. The article notes that issues of free
speech are rarely cut-and-dried, and that Amazon is doing itself no
favors by going
up against the Humane Society.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by KD : updated Nick Gisburne link to new account.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by KD : updated Nick Gisburne link to new account.
Doesn't surprise me that someone who criticizes religion gets censored. After all, religious ideas are completely sacred and can't possibly be questioned by anyone. That would be progress, and progress is WRONG.
Care about privacy? Read this!
So some people are trying to silence magazines about a subject they object to, and Amazon refuses to be intimidated or allow them to intimidate others on their property. Sounds more like a good way to handle free speech to me.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
There we go.
Right to Free Speech, consider yourself excersized!
when it was Christianity, it was OK.
Maybe now some of the Google is wonderful nonsense will stop. Censoring people on religious grounds qualifies as being evil in my book. Of course, after Google sold to out to please the Chinese government, it was clear Google had decided that greed was a better motive than not being evil.
Private parties can do as they please. You have *NO* constitutional right to say what you want on their services. It may not be "nice" to do, but no one can stop them from doing this. Your right may vary by state, though.
You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation. The US Constitution guarantees that "government" shall not infringe the right to a citizen's free speech. Any time you have a non-governmental agency "it doesn't apply".
Amazon can cut off anyone they wish, so can Google. Google is not obligated to do a damn thing concerning free speech. They can censor anyone they want because they are a corporation, not the government. The law/Constitution isn't going to protect someone from posting in a forum/newsgroup ran by Google. Too bad, that's what you accept when you post in Google's forum/newsgroup; a place owned by essentially a private party.
The only repercussions from something like this (private censorship) is the free market system. Boycott, attention getting, etc. But you can't force them to make them accept your free speech.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
These are corporations, not the government; there is no "right" to free speech that's being infringed upon. Whether these are sensible approaches from the companies is a different question, of course.
If YouTube decides that a video is offensive to a segment of its users, then it has every right to remove the video. Expecting free speech protection from a private entitity is a bit absurd. The local mall would throw my ass on the street if I stood inside protesting leather products.
The lesson here? Host your videos somewhere else, provide your own video hosting service, or deal with YouTube's practices.
i've dealt with animal protection fanatics before, and i know this statement is misleading bullshit. a more accurate picture of the situation would that be one of them would have rung up and abused the service rep over the phone and they had no choice but to hang up on them. manners and due process don't ever occur to people like this who try take the moral high ground. while i am against animal cruelty, i hate groups like PETA in the people who side with them.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Okay, apparently half the posters don't understand what Freedom of Speech is all about. Google and Amazon are not the government (yet at least). The first amendment protects you from the government taking away your rights, not corporations and individuals. So what if Google removed a video, it's their property that he's posting it on. If they don't like something, they have a right to remove it. To say they don't have this right, would be like saying if someone put up a political sign in your yard of someone from the party you don't support, that you don't have a right to remove it because you're violating someone else's free speech.
As for the Amazon case, sure, you have a right to call and complain. Nothing says that Amazon has to actually listen to you.
In the end, these aren't issues of free speech. These are people getting their panties in a knot because someone wouldn't listen to them.
Amazon has a right to sell that filth if they so choose. I also have the right not to shop there, and to tell everybody I know that they condone this sick shit. I still don't see what this has to do with free speech.
I don't respond to AC's.
Come on, this should be a no-brainer. Google, Youtube and Amazon are privately owned, privately administered and privately funded organizations. They are no more obligated to keep the videos of controversial speakers on line, or engage in conversation with people who have animal-rights concerns than anyone is obligated to read this post, or Slashdot is obligated to prevent it from being deleted. There is no contract implied here beyond a social one; said speaker can take his videos to other sites, and people who have a problem with Amazon selling cock-fighting magazines can take their business elsewhere. If Slashdot banned me for whatever reason, I could continue to post on Kuro5, or Digg, or any other equally private site that would let me in.
OK, I think I get the gist of the OP but let me see if I get this straight.
You can make a movie called White Guys can't Jump but you can't make a movie called Black Guys can't swim (fill in swim with whatever).
You can make "logical arguments" against Christianity. You can even make jokes about the religion and it's Members.
But as soon as you breath a word against the Muslims you are silenced.
We have a new minority in America. It's call the muslims. Please, if you are a male white American, add to your list of people not to offend: the Muslims. But remember, anyone can publicly deride the whites, males, christians but never speak ill of the jews, muslims, blacks (oh shit! sorry -- African American), mexicans, or anyone else who didn't have an ancestoral basis in North Western Europe along the paternal lines of the family tree.
It's getting kind of crazy around here with all the people who are demanding both freedom of speech and respect for their own beliefs.
Don, you're wanted on the set... please get off of slashdot and practice you're "You're Fired" catchphrase. That never gets old!
The religeon defines a lot of our culture even if we don't believe it. It depends on how this is done - going after extreme loonies doesn't make the entire thing invalid.
A lot of people here have noted that free speech does not extend to corporate America. Quite true - no one has a right to speak on youtube. But the interesting question is why does google choose to exercise their corporate prerogative so as to permit anti-Christian argumentation but not anti- Islam argumentation. This does intrigue me. I haven't seen either the anti-Christian or the (now banned) anti-Islam videos. Is there a real difference that would explain why the former is welcome on youtube but the latter is forbidden? There are a great many arguments revealing the fundamental irrationality of both religions. I don't see why google would not welcome both.
Amazon is actually being nice if all they do when someone calls to complain about what they carry is hang up. If it were me, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, and I'd phrase it just that way.
I object highly to forcing animals to fight for entertainment. I think it should be illegal in all of the US (currently, cock fighting is pefectly legal in at least two states (New Mexico and Mississippi, if I'm not mistaken).
But I find censorship even more objectionable than that. And when a group like the Humane Society tries to force censorhip on a company, it makes me want to go bite the head off a parrot and kick a puppy, as well as go buy the very magazines they are objecting too.
As for Google, that works both ways. While I support free speech, I also support the right of the owners of a computer system to dictate how their computer system is used. If you don't like it that Google dictates what videos you can place on their service, then lease or buy your own damned server.
And its already been pointed out, correctly, that the Second Amendment applies to the government and not corporations, so I won't warm up that dead horse.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
It's not the free speech, it's the hypocrisy. It's OK to bag Christianity, but not Islam? WTF is up with that?
I can tell you: Christianity is used to being harrassed, and Christianity has shown itself to be nothing, if not resilient to this kind of thing. Whereas Islam is extremely poor at handling criticism; you might find yourself dead, burned, having some bizarre rushdie-like death sentence on you, or being chased by a bunch of brainwashed muslims.
So no, you CAN'T make fun of Islam or point out the stupidity of living 14th century dogma in the 21st century.
It's telling too, because a confident religion doesn't care what is said about it. Witness what's been said about Christianity! No, it's only a scared religion which reacts poorly to criticism - and the main reason (I maintain) is because even "devout" Muslims KNOW that what they've been told is a load of stinking horse shit, but it is impossible to speak out against it.
Loud voices openly criticising Islam might start the tide against Islam, and that would result in the modernisation of that religion, and those who currently hold the power in Islam would see their power vanish almost instantly. So this issue continues to be about the power Islam wields over women, and other people. It's certainly got nothing to do with religion per se, in my view.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation.
That's because everyone perpetually equates "free speech" with "censorship". Censorship CAN be a violation of your right to free speech, but not always- and this case is a perfect example. Others say that censorship cannot be done by a corporation; that's also wrong. Everything you watch on TV is run past network censors. Anything you watch in the movie theater, also (most likely) run past censors.
Youtube's actions are censorship. They are not violation of anyone's "free speech" rights. Nothing stops the gent in question from posting his commentary on his own website, or publishing commentary in any number of forms of other media (for example, printing a booklet or printing a newsletter.) If the government comes knocking on his door and takes his computer and printer and says, "You can't print this, Muslims don't like it", that is a violation of his right to free speech.
Please help metamoderate.
You relize that this means that the goals of the militant islmists are being met, therfore proving that terrorism works.
Hello,
youtube, amazon, google, etc. are not the commons. If he is serious about disseminating a message (as opposed to entertainment, masturbation, or commercial guerilla marketing campaigns, he should get his own webserver and buy some keywords from google, yahoo, etc.
$subject. It doesn't exits. It is just another "product" of "democracy".
Every society has taboo topics - and existence of "free speech" didn't changed that.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I'm not for political correctness but I am against blatant racism. Thanks for proving there's a difference with your perfectly racist post.
So much for that...bring on the censorship. Maybe they thought this was China...
Yes, YouTube is a private corporation so you don't have freedom of speech on it. But there are laws against companies discriminating. For example, a company can't refuse to serve black people or Jewish people or of any other racial group. I'm not saying it's the case here, but aren't there the same laws for religions discrimination? So might there be problems if they chose to block religion x but not religion y? (Again, in this case it's not as clear cut, but what about more generally with censorship dealing with religion beliefs?)
Every corporation has a responsibility to protect its employees. This is all about mitigating risk and lowering their liability. Removing the video had nothing to do with limiting the speech of Nick Gisburne.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
That video is about Mormons, not Christians. It's true that Mormons claim to be Christians, but that claim is very controversial and is not accepted by most of mainstream Christianity. There are literally thousands of different Christian groups, and to some extent they all reject some of the beliefs of others, but most groups accept that most of the others are in fact Christians. The hit rate with Mormonism, however, is very low, in both directions. That is, most Christian groups do not accept Mormonism as a form of Christianity, and Mormonism rejects most other groups as well.
Of course, the question of who gets to define the term "Christian" is a complex one, but if you let the majority of people who apply it to themselves also be the ones who define it, then it probably doesn't include Mormonism.
Also, one other telling difference is that most Christian groups use only the Bible as their sacred text. Mormonism also has the Book of Mormon, which (as I understand it) takes precedence in case the two disagree. The only other major difference between sacred texts within Christianity is over the exact canonization of the books within the Bible. Catholics have a few more than Protestants, and there are a few other differences here and there. But this is a comparatively minor difference: all books that Protestants and Catholics disagree on are from the same historical time period, and the disagreement is really more about authenticity and authorship than anything. If you categorize groups based on what their sacred text is, Mormonism has about as much similarity to Christianity as Islam has.
I don't see the problem with the way amazon is handling free speech. In fact just the opposite, they seem to be standing up for it in this case. If they have started hanging up on people commenting about the matter this may be a PR blunder but it is hardly a free speech deficit. Besides, Amazon sets up these phones for people to call with genuine issues about orders and products not as a place for the public to express it's opinion. Besides, what is likely to cost amazon money would be a humane society boycott and that is all about whether they stop selling the video. It isn't like there is some magical way for them to handle the free speech issue that would avoid pulling the video but avoid risking a boycott.
So sure there is an argument that hanging up was a bad choice for amazon's bottom line but supposing they weren't going to pull the video the case isn't very clear cut.
Personally I'm not willing to criticize amazon at all for hanging up on people calling to complain about what they sell. Companies like private citizens have no obligation to accept phone calls berating their moral choices. I suspect everyone here would hang up on people calling because you were selling things on ebay they found morally objectionable and why should we condemn amazon for doing the same. In fact I'm a little outraged that people feel amazon is doing bad because they don't want to tie up their phone lines with demands that they censor their product lines.
--
As an aside I wish these links had been to more impartial news sources. I couldn't find any documentation about this being why the youtube user had been banned, for all I know he was uploading Britney Spears videos too. Also the site linked about the animal issue was obviously biased and I found it's legal opinions questionable.
For example the argument on the HSUS website about the illegality of the amazon products is that the first amendment does not protect speech that proposes an unlawful transaction. Yet what unlawful transaction is being proposed? These videos, while viscous and likely images of unlawful acts, likely don't say 'Thursday night let's get together and have a dog fight.' Moreover, the supposed analogy with the man they mention is unpersuasive without additional context.
--
Finally I should say that while I certainly disapprove of these kind of animal cruelty videos I reluctantly have to agree that amazon should continue to stock them unless they are themselves illegal or depict illegal acts staged for the purpose of making the video. If they do otherwise why not refuse to sell pornography or books/videos that show how to engage in civil disobedience? I mean many of the civil rights protests were technically illegal but selling videos of them should not be.
The essential test of free speech is whether you stand up for it even when it is distasteful and while amazon is a private entity it is important that we don't end up with effective censorship because all our bookstores and media outlets refuse to carry controversial material.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Okay, say you run YouTube, and you've got some guy ranting anti-Christian bullshit. What's the Christian reaction? 'Hey, you're an ass' Now its anti-Muslim bullshit. What's the general Muslim reaction? 'Hey, you're an ass' Problem is, Islam has more fringe loonies than Christianity, and mocking Christians is less likely to get you killed. In their position, I think a lot of people criticizing the move probably would have chickened out and pulled the guy off, too. It reminds me of some play that was canceled in Germany because one scene had the decapitated heads of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Poseidon, and the prophet Mohammad on chairs, and it was cancelled because everyone was afraid of the Muslim reaction. This has happened before, and it will happen again.
So wait.. YouTube is bad because it didn't defend free speech, but Amazon is bad because it did and it is Kevin Kelleher's opinion that going up against the Humane Society might be a bad idea?
The two scenarios (caving in to animal rights activists and caving in to islamists) are analogous. In both cases a group that is willing to fight, and maybe fight dirty, is trying to leverage its clout against a mercantile entity. Ever since we gave up on the idea of an aristocracy and its code of valor, chivalry etc. and settled for the rule of the $$, we are stuck with the fact that shokeepers are no fighters and have no principles, other than making money (Amazon and Google are just large, modern versions of shopkeepers). Learn to live with it or change the system...
His post was not racist. You gave no explanation of why it is ok to deride Christians but not Muslims. By letting this pass, you show clearly that it is you who are the bigot.
I'm not so sure about that, Mormons do say that they "believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1) (see number 8) Different from most Christian demoninations, who believe the Bible to be absolutely perfect and the final word on everything, but I think that also shows more belief than a Muslim would have in the Bible.
Just FYI.
Regarding blacks.. The title "Africa-American" misleading, since you do not have to black in order to be african-american. Similarly, being black does not imply you were from Africa. So it's nonsense either way.
While looking at the original video, I came across this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related& v=C7_H03Pqg74
From the summary:
The first in what will be a series of sitcoms entitled "Married to Muhammad" Where I, Cap'n Awesome, marry the Prophet Muhammad (Jizz be upon him) and all our subsequent adventures. In this episode we have our wedding, our honeymoon, and a short bit of our life afterwards, where Muhammad has to adjust to living with me
Seriously funny, if watching an atheist guy jerk off to a picture of Muhammad is amusing to you, lol.
Hartman: I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops, or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Do you know whether his commentary was appropriate or just a rant?
The average white (caucasian) male American between 15 and 55 is the most discriminated and censored group in the US. Sure, there might be a majority in numbers, but they are being treated as the minority in anything we do making us the oppressed group. And the main culprit seems to be scares of lawsuits because of discrimination (there is a typical law that handles such situations here in the States).
Take jobs for example: the hiring manager (especially in big corporations) sometimes HAS to hire or at least evaluate somebody of the so-called 'minority' (whether that is non-caucasian or female) whether or not they do fill the requirements so they get to present 'non-discriminating' numbers to the government.
And there are so much other examples going from social services to customer service. I am a minority group (I am not American) but I look just like any other American (except for the typical weight) and I sometimes feel that (both in job (hiring) situations and other) that I am not treated as should be and even shunned for selection until I mention that I actually moved to the States a short while ago and that I am an immigrant.
I even got selected for a job once that was totally out of my league and interests (but I needed the money) while initially the recruiter didn't sound very interested, I mentioned that I was immigrated recently and I got a job offer after the first interview. Of course I didn't keep the job (for different reason's including my interest).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I hate to say it, but;
YouTube is free.
Thusly, no one has a right to really bitch when they do something you don't like. And honestly? As entertaining, or enlightening as religious debate may be, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDo2SMdB-0, there's a time and a place. And if Youtube says not on my time, and not in my space, well, suck it up and deal with it. No one's stopping you from saying it, sharing it, feeling it, thinking it, but they ARE exercising their right to NOT have it on their site. Regardless of similar videos, topics, etc. They don't have to be impartial, or fair. In fact they can be hypocrites of they like. They can leave certain videos up that discuss the subject, while taking others down. That's really their prerogative.
I may not agree with what any given person chooses to do with their freedoms, but I will fight for their right to do so.
In the end, the only thing that matters is how much fun you had.
English-language translations of the Quran vary so widely that Islam doesn't accept them as translations, they are all regarded as paraphrases. You should read this short article to get a feel for how the various translations make errors.
Here are some other translations of that same verse (Al-Qasas 28:62):
Khalifa: The day will come when He calls upon them, saying, "Where are those idols you had set up beside Me?"
Pickthall: On the day when He will call unto them and say: Where are My partners whom ye imagined?
Shakir: And on the day when He will call them and say: Where are those whom you deemed to be My associates?
Sher Ali: And on that day HE will call to them, and say, `Where are those whom you allege to be my associates?'
Yusuf Ali: That Day (God) will call to them, and say "Where are my 'partners'?- whom ye imagined (to be such)?"
Transliteration: Wayawma yunadeehim fayaqoolu ayna shuraka-iya allatheena kuntum tazAAumoona
In the US human societies are local organizations. HSUS is a front for PETA.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I think the Humane Society does itself no favors by ripping apart the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendment in pursuit of its own goals. Maybe it should try convincing people not to sell or buy animal fight magazines, and cease and desist its self-serving attacks against the US Constitution.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Businesses open to the public can not arbitrarily restrict people based on certain criteria-race and religion for example. That issue has been fought in the courts and those who maintained that because it was "private property" lost (bus lines, restaurants, hotels, country clubs, etc), because they allowed the general public in and had a government granted license to operate, either a business license and/or/with a corporate charter, either for profit or non profit. and because corporations are not citizens. they have a near person-hood, but they are not protected "citizens', and as such can be regulated a lot more heavily than a single named flesh and blood person can be, at least in theory. The government can't censor your speech, but they sure as heck can restrict what corporations do or can't do, especially as it applies to the civil rights act and some more, enacted under the provisions of the commerce clause in the constitution.
There's a difference between your private residence and an open to the public business in the court's eyes. And I know because I was involved in trying to change that situation in ye olden days, back when it was still fairly common to have "private" businesses discriminate arbitraily.
Youtube/google allows the general public in, and they are businesses, even if it is just showing you ads.. It's a pretty fine line to say they can't based on *talking* about race or religion, because those are two of the magic bingo words that (can or may) trigger discrimination charges in a legal sense. Googtoob is saying they won't let such and such a person in based solely on religious commentary-looks to me like a pretty large no-no.
I think if this was really pushed all the way in the court system that Youtube/Google would lose based on the in-place discrimination laws. Probably be one of those major precedent setting cases. (along with disability access at commercial websites, another issue but one that needs addressing, IMO)
But-who knows really, no predicting the court systems any more.
It is interesting that this dude was allowed to go after a peaceful religion that teaches that God is love: 1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. And prevented from going after a religion that teaches violence: Koran 5:33 The Punishment for those who oppose Allah and his messenger is : Execution or Crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land It is time for the entire world to realise that Islam by its very nature and through its essential principles openly supports, encourages and propogates Terrorism of the worst kind. Therefore the Islamic terrorist is in fact the most devout Muslim, because he is following exactly what Islam teaches through the Divine Koran. Political correctness Youtube?...
When you think that you are right. You could be wrong. When you think that you are wrong, you could be right. Don't jump
Why is ok to talk sh*t about Christians and not Muslims? The left in this country are bunch of bigots!
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Well, you got to think whether it matters at all. Garbage in, garbage out...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
South Park has lampooned a multitude of religions since the first season. Last year Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) forced them to remove the image of Mohammad from an episode.
Didn't you know? You can't criticize Christianity or Islam because, hey, they are moral and righteous by definition.
When you try to challenge them on their texts (which many of them claim to be literally true), they say that phrases like "kill them" or "burn them with fire" don't really mean what they say because they "depend on context" or are "metaphorical". Never mind that Christians and Muslims alike have actually been practicing these words for centuries, literally killing and burning people who didn't submit to their beliefs.
It's ironic that it's right-wing Christians that have the gall to accuse others of moral relativism or trying to play word games. The Abrahamic religions invented moral relativism, morality of convenience, and redefining the meaning of words according to political and moral convenience.
Logic has no use in the fight against viral religion memes. If logic were of use, religious people would have never become infected with belief in the first place. The best one can do is to ignore the whole mess and let evolution sort itself out, which it inevitably will, and one day we will all become ostritch riding otters.
"Speaker for the Dead," the sequel to "Ender's Game"
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Exactly. Although I have to laugh at anyone who actually believe that motto meant something at one time or another; it doesn't. It is merely marketing to lure counter-culture geeks into becoming corporate fanboys. "Look at this company, they say they won't be evil!" Google makes some fine software, but their halo has worn off. Unfortunately, the groupthink here is slow to realize things like this, so it could be quite awhile before the worship dies down.
Work.
Anyone who criticises Islam is accused of being racist, and has the full weight of Political Correctness thrust down upon them. This is utter bullshit.
It is our RIGHT to criticize ANY religion, be it in the spirit of Martin Luther, or in the spirit of Frederick Neitzche. It doesn't matter.
Now, to ban a man for making a video of quotes from a book, simply the quotes, and calling that "inappropriate hate speech", that is a fucking travesty, and a symptom of everything that's wrong with giving certain groups special treatment. It may not be a violation of any of his rights, since Youtube is a private entity, but it's still a bitter pill to swallow. A man has been silenced because quoting from a book was deemed "inappropriate".
I suppose nobody at Youtube figured that, if the quotes are inappropriate, maybe it's the author(s) of the book itself that should be blamed, and not the messenger. No, truth takes a back seat to making damned sure nobody could possibly be offended by anything.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Christopher Hitchens was on TV Ontario recently debating a similar issue, whether religions should be protected from criticism, mocking, etc. Audio can be heard here.
I guess you're not Australian either then...
His new YouTube profile
Unfortunately he hasn't reposted all of his videos (God's Magic Banana Factory was hilarious) but God willing, (ha) he will soon.
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
I'm not kidding that the Terrorists win again (most terrorists we fear these days are the Muslim Jihadists like Bin Laden). Yes Google is being hypocritical, and I know they can choose what is banned or allowed on YouTube. The reeal difference between the two in this case is mostly they fear being blown up or shot at. It would be better if they just admitted they were scared.
Remember the Mohammed cartoons last year? The violence, and most newspapers or other outlets would not show them. Remember SouthPark getting censored? Hello, is anybody there? This is the fear by the terrorists and Jihadists want you to have if you cross them.
They may not represent all Musilims, but there are more than just a few loonies, it looks more like 10 to 25% of them think this way. This accomodation will not work long term, they will want more, and there will be more fighting not less. Better to stand up for our culture, than let it be taken away piece by piece.
Because christians don't burn down buildings and kill people when you insult their beliefs. *SOME* islamic groups do. Remember the international scandal with the drawings of prophet Muhammad?
and all that 1984 crap.
The HSUS is attempting to violate the free speech and press rights of the magazine publishers.
(by lobbying the government to take Constitutionally questionable legal action)
Additionally they are harassing Amazon in an attempt to stop the distribution of such material.
(While threatening them with the instigation of legal action)
As we all know only the Government can censor freedom of expression and that is what the animal rightists are trying to use.
I commend Amazon for standing up to such groups. Particularly as animal rights/enviormental extremists are the largest domestic terror group in the United States.
http://www.youtube.com/user/NickGisburne2000
The full story is on there. If someone in Slashdot can change the story link to go there, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Nick Gisburne
Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion
To say they don't have this right, would be like saying if someone put up a political sign in your yard of someone from the party you don't support, that you don't have a right to remove it because you're violating someone else's free speech.
Corporations are not like private, personal property; they don't enjoy the same protections, and they shouldn't. You have great latitude deciding what goes into your yard, but corporations are already far more limited in that.
Now, YouTube offers hosting to everybody, and this hosting model already gives them protection against some legal claims. It might be reasonable to impose even stronger requirements on them to get them to conform to free speech principles.
A better analogy might be if the phone company started to censor what you could say over their lines. Well, they can't, and they shouldn't be able to.
HSUS may have an extreamly large number of people that donate a few bucks a year to it, but its never been able to get its membership to follow its lead on these things.
. cfm/oid/136
The truth is that most of those that donate to HSUS don't even understand that they are giving $$ to a national org and not the local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it's not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn't operate a single one anywhere.
Good luck getting this membership to follow a ban they call for on anything.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview
No thats John Safran who is a regular on (off-beat) Australian TV. Incidently safran is Jewish.
The funny thing is that in his first appearence on Australian TV (Race around the world) he did a stunt at Disneyland by replacing signs in a museum with new ones which point to Walt Disney's apparently anti-semitic activities. I remember that program going to air but there is nothing on Safran's web sites about it now.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Come on, this should be a no-brainer. Google, Youtube and Amazon are privately owned, privately administered and privately funded organizations.
First of all, they are publicly traded corporations, which already imposes strong requirements on their conduct, in particular with regards to discriminatory practices.
Secondly, it's not at all clear that they can do what they want. US phone companies are non-governmental, yet they can't pick and choose what kinds of speech they allow on their wires. So, it's far from clear that YouTube should have the right to pick and choose what kinds of videos they publish.
Whether you support the Humane Society or not, animal fighting activities, and the promotion thereof, are illegal. That is a fact. Would Amazon consider selling child porn materials on their site? Of course not. Why? Because that would be illegal, and not because that would be amoral (although that would indeed be as well to everybody but child molesters). It is only if Amazon were to remove materials because they promote amoral activities that they would be interfering with customers' rights to decide what is amoral to them. But if materials promote illegality, should Amazon not remove them? Now, it remains to be determined in court whether these materials indeed explicitly promote illegal activities.
He had a gold plaque made up to look like the others on the wall, very funny! That's got to be 7 or 8 years ago now though. Maybe more.
Mormons believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.
What more does it take to be called Christian? Christians are followers of Christ and Mormons follow Christ. Mormonism rejects most other groups as well. The claim that Mormonism rejects other groups is false.
From the Articles of Faith :
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
Many Mormon charity and humanitarian groups work hand in hand with Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and other religious and non religious groups.
I am a Christian and a Mormon. Some of my closest friends are atheists. I work with and respect people of all faiths.
Disney must have sued Safran and/or the ABC because there is no reference to that incident on the web now.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I have to say I consider myself proud to be counted among Christians right now. I think it speaks well of Christians in general that it's OK for people to criticize and mock, yet violent responses are rare. Maybe Christians are living their religion to turn the other cheek and treat others as they would want to be treated.
"Didn't you know? You can't criticize Christianity or Islam because, hey, they are moral and righteous by definition."
Funny, this article seemed to purport that criticizing Christianity was ok but criticizing Islam isn't.
Welcome to the U.S., you must be new here.
"When you try to challenge them on their texts (which many of them claim to be literally true), they say that phrases like "kill them" or "burn them with fire" don't really mean what they say because they "depend on context" or are "metaphorical"."
1. Tell me where these passages exist in the bible.
2. I'll tell you what they mean in an HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Then you may understand why they are there when they refer to people who were enslaved, persecuted and slaughtered.
3. Context is everything no matter how much you want to deny it. Without context, I'm pretty sure you're either in a coma, a social misfit, or insane.
"Never mind that Christians and Muslims alike have actually been practicing these words for centuries, literally killing and burning people who didn't submit to their beliefs."
Funny thing there, a lot of people have been slaughtered because they didn't submit to a set of beliefs, religious or not. READ A HISTORY BOOK.
"The Abrahamic religions invented moral relativism"
I don't think you understand what moral relativism means.
Having a set rule of moral laws is the exact opposite of moral relativism.
One difference is that in the West/first world, Christianity has effectively, and thankfully, been CAGED. It no longer rules governments and people. It's trying to regain some of this power all the time, of course.
Islam is what Christianity used to be - it still RULES governments and people. It isn't that Christianity is somehow more resilliant or correct, it's simply that it lacks the power and influence to respond in the brutal manner that it used too, and that Islam still does.
...reflect on what the right to free speech actually entails. You have the right to speak your mind, in public, without initerference from the government or anyone else, subject to a few, very narrow, limitations (i.e. you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or defame someone). The right to free speech does to mean that anyone is obligated to listen to you - they're free to walk away, hang up the phone, put their hands over their ears, whatever. Neither is any person or businiess obligated to provide you with a soapbox, or let you use theirs. That's what the democratization of the web is all about - if you don't like it that YouTube has banned video xyz, nobody's stopping you from putting your money where your mouth is and setting up a site to stream it yourself (or even from just releasing it via p2p services, if you don't have any cash).
1. In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him.
:)
2. And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord over all the earth when it was suited to Man.
3. And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.
etc.
That's what you get for not reading Terms of Use. Freedom of speech is great, and all, but you're not going to find it on Moderated sites that you have no sway with.
> The cut Mohammad scene was an innocuous three-second clip of Mohammad handing a guy a fish.
It gets even more silly. Ol Mo featured for much of the 5th Season ep "Super Best Friends" and clips were used to put together the 6th season opening credits. Every 6th season episode has a visual depiction of the Prophet. Comedy Central has neither pulled the entire season or edited the credit roll.
Just being politically correct pussies. Of course they fear getting their heads cut off but that is no excuse, if you give in to the fear the terrorists have won. Being a TV exec isn't all fun and getting your dick sucked, sometimes it requires some leadership and Viacom failed.
Democrat delenda est
It's not political correctness to be afraid of your ass getting bombed. Muslims are fucking ka-ka-KRAZY!
One more thing - by the powers vested in me as a member of the Anglo-Saxon master race, I hereby give all members of the lesser races permission to ridicule the white man, especially those right-wing wankers who whine about it.
You don't actually believe that Muslims are treated with kid gloves in the US ? Do you have a television ? Have you seen "24", "True Lies" or "The Siege" ? What about the #1 radio personality in the US, constantly referring to Arabs as "tow*lheads", or one of your leading politicians objecting to an muslim congressman taking his oath of office on a Koran, or better yet another proposing o "nuke" Mecca. Sorry, but I just don't see this coddling you refer to.
I am not sure why you feel the need to offend people.
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
God told me it is OK to kill anyone who needs killing, as long as you do it in His name and not mention any postings on Slashdot.
You will be rewarded in the afterlife. Really.
'What the hell are you getting so upset about?' he asked her bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. 'I thought you didn't believe in God.'
'I don't,' she sobbed, bursting violently into tears. 'But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be.'
Yossarian laughed and turned her arms loose. 'Let's have a little more religious freedom between us,' he proposed obligingly. 'You don't believe in the God you want to, and I won't believe in the God I want to. Is that a deal?'
(Joseph Heller, Catch-22)
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Congrats on Godwining your own site (www.gisburne.com). Comparing yourself to the Nazi-persecuted Jews adds a real touch of class.
But since you did mention hooters, how about we call them Hooterists, and the owl can be the sacred symbol?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
There is one problem with intelligent discourse these days; there is no intelligence.
> but never speak ill of the jews
You haven't been paying attention. Anti-semitism, Holocaust Denial and outright jew hatred are now pretty much mainstream on sites like Daily Kos and DU. So as long as you are a deranged leftie Jews are now in season. Best I can figure they have decided that if they throw Israel under the bus the terrorists will stop hating us. Pathetic if you ask me, but I'm just a right wing reactionary neocon.
Sorry if this is too much truthiness, but when I have to pick sides in the Middle East I'll take the only one with a representitive government and basic liberties over the 7th century rejects. And as for the "Palestinian", to paraphrase Kos himself, "screw em." They elected a terrorist government when they could have had peace and a real country of their own, let em live with the consequences of their stupidity.
Democrat delenda est
There are literally thousands of different Christian groups, and to some extent they all reject some of the beliefs of others, but most groups accept that most of the others are in fact Christians. The hit rate with Mormonism, however, is very low, in both directions. That is, most Christian groups do not accept Mormonism as a form of Christianity, and Mormonism rejects most other groups as well.
And this, folks, is why our forefathers were smart to ban religion from government. Next time you see someone proclaiming that we should put God "back" into government, ask them if they're Baptist. If they say yes, punch 'em in the face real hard, and tell them that's what Baptists were getting in Virgina before the founding fathers threw Him out of government. If they're Catholic, offer to decapitate their wife.
Meanwhile, in Islamic countries, the different flavors of Islam are busy trying to use the power of government to kill each other off (lol Iraqi death squads), while westerners who have forgotten about these schisms scratch their heads and wonder just why Iran would be happy to nuke half the Muslims in the Middle East just to get at Israel.
I'm sure Nick Gisburne is a nice guy and all but you'll excuse me if I'm hesitant to go just by the word of one of the parties to the dispute. Either I would like to hear both sides, his and google's, or at least a report by a neutral third party that has done some research.
Everyone feels the temptation to exaggerate their case when they feel they've been wronged and it is all to easy to jump to outraged conclusions about why some action was taken.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
1.)Breeders of fighting cocks & dogs in states where such is illegal
2.)Paraphenelia in states where such is illegal
3.)Events in states where such is illegal
So, yeah, it seems kinda clear that they're advertising & profiting off an illegal activity.
Oh, yeah, and the racism thing? Well, you know, my ancestors made sacrifices of strangers & criminals several times a year to make sure the seasons still changed. So should I be calling you a racist for banning my traditions?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
was that the concept was taken seriously at all levels he saw and that proposals died quickly in meetings if someone questioned the ethical implications.
That's "former employee", so it's not like he's defending the source of his paycheck.
What's the difference? Figure it out for yourselves:
-----
Martin Scorsese releases a film that was mildly heretical to Christianity. Some Christians stand around with placards protesting. Some boycott his movie. Most yawned and flip the newspaper to page two.
The very same year Salman Rushdie publishes a book that is mildly heretical to Islam. He received death threats and had to go into hiding. Noted peace activist turned Mulsim, Cat "Peace Train" Stevens, affirms that Rushdie should be killed. A fatwah was issued against booksellers (I was one) selling the tome. To this day, Rushdie remains in hiding.
-----
Over a decade later another movie was released that was mildly heretical to Christianity. A bunch of Christians boycotted it. A few sermons were preached from a few pulpits. That was it. Dale Brown and Tom Hanks made a lot of money.
Near the same time, a Danish newspaper publishes some cartoons, a few of which were mildly heretical to Islam. The Islamic world threw a shit fit, and engaged in violent protest for weeks. People died. Newpapers around the world tossed out principles held since the dawn of the Enlightenment and refused to print the cartoons.
-----
An opera that is planning to portray the severed heads of religious leaders is cancelled out of fear of violence... not because of the head of Jesus, but because of the head of Mohammed.
-----
Are you beginning to see the picture? Certainly Christianity has a checkered past, but it embraced the Enlightenment and Reformation. It has moved past its sins. But Islam remains rooted in a violent medieval mindset.
I used to think it was just a small group of fanatic extremist Muslims that were the problem. But then I started to realize that mainstream Islam was not condemning the fanatics. They were being awfully quiet. Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over suicide bombings? Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over Hamas and PLO thuggery? Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over Wahabism? Over femail genital mutilation? Over "honor" killings? Over the torture and murder of homosexuals?
Western Civilization needs to STOP pretending that Islam is a religion of peace. It needs to stop sheltering Islam in the blanket of political correctness. It needs to stop pretending that the camel isn't in the tent. It needs to take a break from bashing Christianity and recognize where the real danger lies.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
>You can make a movie called White Guys can't Jump but you can't make a movie called Black Guys can't swim (fill in swim with whatever).
>You can make "logical arguments" against Christianity. You can even make jokes about the religion and it's Members.
There might be more twitchiness if white people had been enslaved for a few hundred years and if five or six million Christians had been sent to chimney camps.
Would YouTube have pulled this video before Google owned it? It's worth considering...
>> The average white (Caucasian) male American between 15 and 55 is the most discriminated and censored group in the US.
> Do you have numbers or data to back up that conjecture ?
I'm one of those majority young male Caucasian Americans. I don't think I'm discriminated against, or censored for that matter (no group has the size and clout to do that, I'd suspect).
However, I do feel from time to time that we get a lot of hate directed our way and I don't see what I, personally, have done to deserve it. Like others have pointed out, you don't see Christians rioting in the streets even though many (including, if the comments in this story are accurate, the atheist in question here) have produced many blasphemous and disgusting things.
Of course, we're under orders to turn the other cheek (though I don't claim to be as good at following that command as I ought to be).
and there you just blew your argument showing you dont know anything about christianity nor islam
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
theres nothign wrong with the bible. nothign at all but ...
...
its not the word of god, its a biography of jesus and what ALLAH told him. by paul and mark and matthew and
oh and also it wasnt translated correctly by king james ii et al (how many hundreds of years and what kind of mutation did the meanings of those words go thru?)
plus the translators had a bias and a direction to their translating
as far as i know the most accurate gospels would be the red sea scrolls and the gospel of barnabas.
what never heard of them? i wonder why the pope dint tell u about them
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
It is imformative about the ethics of the companies. You kind of learn that Google is a bunch of cowards and that freak-of-nature Rosie O'Donnell's concerns about violent Christians are phony. You also learn that Amazon is ok with being complicit in probably the cruelest treatment as animals that you can imagine and are also as ignorant as the poster about what is 'free speech.'
I'd side with Amazon on that one for a couple of reasons at least:
1- Amazon is selling at least two books that advocate stuff much worse that animals being made to hurt each other : murder, rape, slavery... but since these two books are the Quran and the Bible, there's very little chance that they'll get banned. Why ?
2- We in France are in the middle of a high-visibility court case, with Islamic organizations suing a newspaper that printed caricatures of their Prophet. I undertsand that lawsuit is a good opportunity to discuss worthwhile issues (dont equate islam with terrorism, backwardness...), but still, I'm uncomfortable with that attempt at censorship, and I don't think that suing is conveying a very positive image.
If what Amazon is selling is legal, they can sell it. They SHOULD sell it. If you don't like what it describes/advertizes, vote, and get the law changed to make it illegal. That's what democracy is about, I think.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation. The US Constitution guarantees that "government" shall not infringe the right to a citizen's free speech. Any time you have a non-governmental agency "it doesn't apply".
Yeah, just like the constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to habeas corpus, it just forbids the government from taking it away. We certainly have come a long way from Voltaire and "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
You claim the US government protects freedom of speech, yet it's really amazing how many different ways the government has evolved to suppress free speech. Free speech zones, copyright law, decency standards, muzzling scientists who believe in global warming, muzzling scientists who don't believe in global warming, the terrorism witch hunt, the child porn witch hunt, and the list continues...
Actually that last one was even better than censorship. It was thought crime. The man sent to prison for writing a fictional story never distributed or even intended to distribute that story. He was sent to prison for the crime of thinking bad thoughts.
My reaction to this story? Well I guess you've figured it out by now... I don't like censorship. I'm ok with Amazon distributing books. I'm not quite sure why Theodp@aol.com is so afraid of books. A book can't hurt you. And, um Google, I know it's cliche and all, but you're letting the terrorists win.
This is too late to be modded, but remember, like it or not, he did not have the right to post those music files.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUAR'AN!!!!!!!!
If there was no history, then you might have almost had a point. If all communities had equal rights and always did, then it could almost be funny.
But its not about neutral "facts", it's about social psychology and historical context which you have conveniently chosen to ignore.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Ottoman reign and the Barbary pirates. Certainly a few hundred years of White slavery there. It took until I met a Turk in person before I heard about the glory of the Ottoman (or other Turkish) reigns, for some reason I didn't learn that little tidbit in history class or in a movie theater.
Probably a billion of us if you count debt as slavery (which since in most countries I am aware of, there are less dollars in circulation than the total amount of debt meaning that it is actually impossible to remove the yoke of debt without a currency crunch).
But you certainly got me on the chimney camps. The 10 million or so Ukrainians who starved in 1932-33 as primarily Jewish Bolsheviks stole their grain didn't pass through any chimneys as far as I'm aware. Still waiting on the movie about that one.
HSUS and PETA are terrorist front organizations
Aye, the King James version of the Bible does have some inaccuracies in the translation, but they have been corrected in more recent versions translated from the original Gree, Aramaic, hebrew, etc. and because the original texts in the original languages are much more available to common people than in the 1600's (I believe that's the right century...), they can't exactly hide any intentional mistranslations anymore- there are enough (though not a whole lot) of people who learn the old languages that could call them out. And I'd have to disagree with your thesis that the Red Sea scrolls would be more accurate gospels than the ones we have today, since the scrolls contained only copies of the Torah and other books which are now part of the Old Testament, and make absolutely no mention in Christ, as they were for the most part written before his ministry. They do, however confirm the accuracy of Old Testament texts to at least Jesus' time, which was heartening for Christians and Jews. As for the Gospel of Barnabus, I have no first-hand knowledge of the text, but from what I understand it was removed because its authorship is under scrutiny, and because it goes against the whole rest of the New testament in the basic tenets of the faith- basically the equivalent of Jesus saying to love your neighbor, then turning around and commanding his disciples to stone the prostitute, a practice which although unfortunately practiced by a lot of Christians, is not really in keeping with the faith. Oh, and I was not under the impression that Allah would have told Jesus to tell everyone he was the son of God, if he were only a prophet secondary in importance to Mohammed who would come later. Of course I also don't understand why Mohammed's followers would want to destroy those who follow another of Allah's prophets as infidels. I know the Christians haven't exactly been nice to the Muslims, what with the Crusades and all, but certain leaders inn the Muslim community do more than reciprocate- something that I'm sure is as much out of keeping with the Quran as the Crusades were with the Bible.
Ironically, while we debate endlessly about a corporation managing to pull it off, gummint's been managing to do so quite a bit the last several years (at least. Quite probably closer to 150).
While there is Google playing up to China, and other such "evil" things, Google in my book is much better than Yahoo or other companies in terms of policy. This situation it was one lowly Gootube staff reviewer, not a company-wide policy that messed up. Yahoo made it policy to hunt down and hand over dissenter idenities to China.
Islam is particularly not a religion that says 'turn them your other cheek' - it actually encourages retaliation against 'the infidel'. 'infidel', 'against the religion' concepts are broad, and can be reevaluated to suit anyone's wish.
hence, whereas christians wont be attacking the site, trying to ban the site in sweden, argentina, russia or anywhere, it cant be said for the muslims, especially those in arab countries. even so that the guy himself would easily be the target of attempts on his own life, if only some sheikh (curious concept, as islam does not allow priest class) showed him as a target with a 'fetva'.
it seems that youtube is covering itself from islamic intolerance, something which we experienced with the denmark cartoon event.
in middle east, and immediate nearby islamic countries, for over 50 years now, unlimited number of varied publications, some even with the hand of government, are condemning, villifying, demeaning, insulting west, western countries, their prominent contemporary and historical figures, demeaning christianity, jews, buddhism, anything you can think of that are not islam, and even insulting. they have all been doing that, or allowing that. however when not even the same thing, a much lesser offense is done in a western country, it suddenly became a scandal.
Read radical news here
Actually , there were a lot of white Christians that were enslaved during the height of Islamic expansion up to it's decline in the nineteenth century . The Barbary wars as well as the start of Europe aggressively attacking the slave traders during the 1800s ended that type of slavery .
His post was not racist. You gave no explanation of why it is ok to deride Christians but not Muslims.
It is not ok to deride Christians. It is not ok to deride Jews. It is not ok to deride Muslims.
Your question, is a strawman. You make an invalid assumption whilst asking your question.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
Yeah, I guess would be funny...
If you're not someone that has to deal with those stereotypes at work.
Not complaining here really, personally I can take a jab. But just wanted to point out that there is a serious side to this.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
This is what Nick Gisburne's video response page says in the sidebar:
IMPORTANT NOTE
You may be picked up on this if you don't read the following. The quotes I used are taken from this page:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelt y/long.html
The Skeptic's Annotated Quran abbreviates the long, flowery language of the Quran into more legible, easily digestible form. Thus it is not strictly verbatim, but it IS a valid translation. It is NOT a commentary, nor is it a distortion of the content of the Quran. For example:
Qur'an says:
As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
The text in the video (and SAQ) is:
Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom
The meaning is the same. I point this out because I do say in my video I used the text taken directly from the Qur'an, where in fact I used the text from the SAQ, but I still stand by the fact that this video shows 'Islamic Teachings: Cruelty From The Qur'an'
I'm sure Christians don't like having their religion slammed, I'm also sure that people do it all the time. As an example take a look at South Park. They had an episode not long ago that tried to feature an image of Mohammad. Not doing anything mean, just an image of him. Comedy Central said no and they had to censor it. However in the same episode they had people literally shitting on Jesus, the president and the American flag, CC was ok with that. In a later episode they went after the Catholic Church for the whole altar-boy sex scandal. They had priests walking around with naked little kids on dog leashes. Again, CC was ok with this.
I don't know about you, but I see a bit of a different standard here. Christians didn't riot over any of this, though CC got angry letters. Also these images were shown in a heavily Christian country on TV, it's not like they were at all obscure.
Every group gets picked on for it's bad stereotypes, be it ignorant southerners, child molesting Catholics, lazy Mexicans, or Arab terrorists. It's been happening forever and will continue to happen. However it seems that the one people get skittish with is Muslims because there are those of them willing to threaten violence as a response to mockery.
>>Aye, the King James version of the Bible does have some inaccuracies in the translation, but they have been corrected in more recent versions translated from the original Gree, Aramaic, hebrew, etc.
It isn't that bad. Some of the newer versions hashed out the major problems. Somethings already were well enough accepted to be unfixable. Young woman being translated into virgin, using the name of the lord in vain rather than in a false oath. NIV might be better, but when referring to inaccuracies... many of them are not translation errors. They are contradictory in the original text as well.
>>and because the original texts in the original languages are much more available to common people than in the 1600's (I believe that's the right century...),
Actually the original texts in the original languages are just as unavailable as ever. We still don't have a copy of the original, not even a copy of a copy in the right language. We have a huge number of different versions from the 4th century which differ widely from each other. We also have some earlier fragments which also differ pretty widely.
>>they can't exactly hide any intentional mistranslations anymore- there are enough (though not a whole lot)
They didn't hide them exactly. For example, 2 Samuel 21:19, typically have the version (KJV) italicize "brother of" because the words "brother of" is simply added regardless of not being in the original text. They obviously realized that Elhanan killing Goliath would clash with the same story of David killing the same person. Other translations go ahead and ignore that and have Goliath die twice (as happens in the original text).
>>And I'd have to disagree with your thesis that the Red Sea scrolls would be more accurate gospels than the ones we have today, since the scrolls contained only copies of the Torah and other books which are now part of the Old Testament
The Red Sea scrolls have less editing than the modern versions we have. Accuracy is completely different as they all pretty well depict events that we are more and more sure did not happen. Archeology tends to disagree with the Bible when the two meet.
>>and make absolutely no mention in Christ, as they were for the most part written before his ministry.
The work dates to the late first century early second century. They are all written after "Christ's ministry" (mythicist quotes) -- Though, they probably do predate the Gospels which were written mid-second century or so.
>>They do, however confirm the accuracy of Old Testament texts to at least Jesus' time, which was heartening for Christians and Jews.
They no more confirm the accuracy of the OT than finding a first printing of Great Expectations would prove the existence of Pip.
>>basically the equivalent of Jesus saying to love your neighbor, then turning around and commanding his disciples to stone the prostitute,
The "don't throw stones" story is actually added in the 4th century.
>>Oh, and I was not under the impression that Allah would have told Jesus to tell everyone he was the son of God, if he were only a prophet secondary in importance to Mohammad who would come later.
Muslims do not hold that Jesus was the son of God, nor that Allah would have told him to say such. Rather that people later made that claim as they were misguided.
>>Of course I also don't understand why Mohammed's followers would want to destroy those who follow another of Allah's prophets as infidels.
You don't? Well, because Muslims are not followers of Mohammad. They are followers of Allah. If they were worshiping Muhammad they would be idolaters. Just as worshiping any prophet of Allah would be idolatry. Further, those who deify Jesus are accused by the Koran of making "Partners unto Allah" -- beyond idolatry this is blasphemy. Both are punishable by death. A quick read of the Koran would answer these questions for you.
>>I know the Christians haven't ex
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
You can make a movie called White Guys can't Jump but you can't make a movie called Black Guys can't swim (fill in swim with whatever).
Why not? Ever tried? Dude, you can walk into a store and buy/rent "Birth of a Nation" and other obviously racist films. An offensive title would be nothing.
But as soon as you breath a word against the Muslims you are silenced.
Have you listened to your radio lately? Tune into any talk show, geared to the average person, discussing the war.
blacks (oh shit! sorry -- African American)
There is nothing wrong in refering to a person as a 'black person'. Same for other races. Being humans, and as a courtesy to others, we usually add 'person' after the race/ethnicity, but that is all. Eg. "white person", "black person", "hispanic person" etc. And that's just if you want to be formal.
It doesn't have to be 'us' versus 'them'. This world would be so much better if people simply treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves. If you do this sincerly, there will be no need to walk on eggshells or be paranoid.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
I wonder how long a video criticizing that nutjob Scientology cult would last.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Why is that the American conservative right has suddenly lost the ability to differentiate any shade between black and white? Why must I be with you or against you?
Here's a summary of the logic your post, and countless others, seem to follow:
1) You do not support Israel' Policies.
a) Therefore, you hate Isreal.
b) Therefore, you believe Israel has no right to exist.
c) Therefore, you hate jews.
D) Therefore, you are anti-semetic.
e) Therefore, you believe the holocaust was a lie.
These are what we call "ridiculous leaps of logic" which, frankly, make no damn sense.
a) Israel is still our ally, of course -- much like France is our ally. To the extent that we believe Israel has made mistakes in pursuing their own war on terror, we feel obligated, as friends, to tell them so. We still support them and grieve with them for their losses but good friends do not sit back and watch as people commit injustice even when those people are their friends.
b) I've honestly never seen anyone other than Klu-Klux-Klan types (utra-liberals, amirite?) make the argument that Israel has no right to exist. If you do not think the "deranged lefites", as you called them, think this way -- then by all means declare this argument a strawman and move on. However, if you think this is a serious left-wing belief then I would argue you're confused. I have seen people argue that that the creation of Israel was a poorly thought-out bad idea. Similarly, I've seen people argue that Israel has no right to continue expanding into areas where people are already living and bulldozing their homes to make way for new Israeli settlements.
These 2 concepts, however, are very much different from suggesting that Israel has no right to exist which, as far as I know, is a fringe belief held only by members of the extreme right (such as the Klan).
C + D) Israel is a nation, not a religion. Criticizing a nation for it's actions against its own citizens is not the same as criticizing the religion that the majority of them follow. Why are people who protest Israel's actions condemned as anti-semites while people who crusade against Chinese oppression aren't labeled "anti-daoists". It really makes no sense.
e) Again, I hear this holocaust denier accusation frequently from the right but I'll bet you can't find a single quote of any left-wing anyone saying such ridiculous crap. That is, unless you think the President of Iran is a liberal.
It's getting kind of crazy around here with all the people who are demanding both freedom of speech and respect for their own beliefs.
Political correctness is for politicians. It's good for them because they can follow those loose guidelines and not alienate potential voters. I find it useful also, because I work and socialize with many different kinds of people. I value their friendship and so I don't use racial epithets. Your problem is that you live in a pluralistic society and we don't like bigots.
Your attitude is finding a home in many places, so I don't buy the oppressed freedom-fighter posture. You've been forced, in the same manner, to wear nice clothing to a wedding or a job interview. You've also been forced to be nice to white males you don't like. If you're able to bear any of those burdens, you might try finding that same fortitude for a similar purpose.
Only NAZI-sympathizers invoke Godwin, AC, no pun intended
So, wait: both of these are only free speech in the sense that Amazon.com and YouTube are powerful companies, and, some might argue, have a responsibility to allow free speech on their sites. But how are they really censoring anyone?
If I submitted an article that was anti-muslim, or pro-animal fighting, (or pro-muslim-fighting) to the New Yorker, and they didn't find it appropriate, they'd have every right to decide not to run it, based on whatever grounds they want.
YouTube isn't saying that no one can speak about the logical failings of Islam. They're just saying they won't be the ones to publish it. Of course, a video likely won't get nearly as many hits if it isn't on YouTube.
But Freedom of Speech doesn't guarantee everyone a spot on the bully pulpit. It just says that you shouldn't be punished or censured for what you say. You have the right to say it. No one has an obligation to listen to you.
As for Amazon -- if the magazines are illegal (as they probably should be, if this is what I think it is, and dogs, or roosters, or whatever other animals are getting hurt) then Amazon should be made to stop distributing the magazines -- same as if they were distributing child porn, or snuff films. On the other hand, if they're legal (regular porn, fake snuff films) and merely in very, very bad taste... then best of luck to the Humane society. I'd certainly lend a hand trying to help shame Amazon into ceasing distribution.
But again -- it's not censorship if Amazon operators are hanging up on callers who want to complain about it. Amazon isn't preventing people from saying anything -- they're just exercising their right to refuse to listen.
who let a poet in here?
Could it at all be possible that christans did not get affended with the video's to such a degree that enough asked for it to be removed. Enough muslims watched the video critisizing islam and decided to complain about it, so google removed it.
A friend of mine is working on a channel, tentatively called Rational TV, which will carry material on atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, skepticism, separation of church and state, evolution, and similar topics. He's initially targeting IPTV networks and hoping to get on Joost. It's not up yet, but within a few days there should be more info at www.rationaltv.com
Not being one myself, I consider a religion Christian if it's based on Jesus. If that particular religion adds a bunch of crazy nonsense to the Jesus worshiping, it doesn't make its followers non-Christians, it just makes them Christians who also believe a bunch of crazy nonsense.
"Can you prove that, assuming that that is true, that it is indeed a facet of the respective religions, and not the persecution of Muslims (don't tell me there isn't any)?"
Islamic countries have practiced institutionalized religious intolerance against unbelievers long before any decently founded complaint of "oppression" could be launched. (I.e. British and French (semi-)occupation of the non-Saudi ME between roughly 1920-1946 after the Ottoman empire collapsed. Also, the brunt of Islamic intolerance is not directed at westerners, but at any indigenous apostates.
"because of the actions of a few"
Well, the Talibs weren't *that* few. The idiots in the White House who thought the Iraq war was a good idea were indeed initially rather few in number though.
"the Christian world is bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan"
For the last couple of years, most of the bombing has been from various indigenous groups that blast the crap out of each other for religous and / or ethnic reasons. Mass bombing is not presently seen as an effective counterinsurgency tactic. (It can work, but it causes too much bad press)
It takes a really sick sort of douchebag to use Slashdotters to fight your battles.
Looks like you are that sort, though...
In the case of YouTube, what makes me even more pissed off is that the community makes YouTube. The community is wholly content driven, and Google steps in and takes control, literally, making it what they want.
okinawa japan
You're getting lost in legal minutiae. The point is not whether specific, existing rules related discriminatory practices or common carrier status apply to YouTube, the point is that that corporations are, in fact, not free to do as they please in the same way you are in your back yard. It would be entirely reasonable and consistent with existing legal practice to require a company like YouTube to act in accordance with free speech principles.
Whether such a requirement can be constructed out of existing law or whether it necessitates passing new laws is a secondary question, and one neither of us knows the answer to.
ALLAH AKBAR
How DARE you insult Islam, the religion of peace.
The gates of Hell are open, an endless army of Jihad warriors have been dispatched.
Good day to you, Sir!
Personally, I find it strange that so many self-proclaimed staunch Christians _blindly_ support whatever Israel (as a nation) does.
I can understand Christians loving Israel and Jews etc. But blind support of their _actions_ and policies is ridiculous given that a look at the Bible (or even just the Torah + the prophets) will tell you that Israel has a track record of mostly doing the wrong things (despite still being God's Chosen).
The meaning of the name Israel should give them a clue. Go figure why God called Israel Israel.
The latest situation is that I posted 2 near-identical videos to YouTube, in the account I was forced to create after my original accounts and videos were removed:
One contained information showing negative passages from the Qur'an
One contained information showing negative passages from the Bible
Their formats were similar, just the origin of the material differed.
The Qur'an video has just been removed by YouTube and flagged as 'Content Inappropriate'
The Bible video? It has not been touched. It's there now.
YouTube is censoring any comment which puts Islam in a bad light. Negative Christian comments are being ignored.
I have posted a new YouTube video about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEaC6Azs9DE
And there is more information on my web site:
http://www.gisburne.com/
Please contact YouTube with any protests you may have. This is censorship, and YouTube is caving in to pressure from Muslims, undeniably.
Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion
YouTube [re: google] is a not the government. They do *not* have to host any of your videos. They have the *right* to remove any video they see fit.
Yeah, it sucks that they're singling out a type of video, but that's their right. Go start your own YouTube if you feel so slighted.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Paine? Too late. Read John Locke's "Letter Concerning Toleration" (from the 1690's) for the first, the best, and the most influential expression of this idea. It was after the English Civil war and the contemporaneous Thirty Years War in Northern Europe, in particular, that Christian thinkers developed the concept of 'toleration', realizing that there simply had to be a better way of solving problems at the macro and the micro level.
My own view is that Islam now must choose the same step forward for itself. Even if that means its factions are, for now, allowed to fight amongst themselves. External pressures can't compel this kind of choice.
Here's Stanford on Locke, anyway:
b)They HAD a real country of their own, right up until the UK gave it away to Israel behind their backs, thus breaking the agreement they had made.
And then the US compounded that treachery by recognising Israel as a sovereign state, basically at gunpoint (metaphorically speaking). And what did Israel do next ? They immediately started attacking neighbouring countries to increase their land area.
So who was stupid ? Palestinians for agreeing to offer land to the beleaguered Israelis (then being cheated), or the Israelis for taking the land then attacking all their neighbours once they had a foothold (ungrateful bastards)?
Oh yeah, that's right, it says in the Bible that Israel belongs to the Jews - How much else do you take as being real in the Bible ? Or is this another case of "pick and mix" ?
Thanks for that. It's nice to see someone with a brain on /. these days. If I only had mod points ...
I thought that the Christians took Jerusalem in the first Crusade, though they didn't keep it for long.
-----------
100% pure freak
I just watched a video yesterday where Nick was talking about his situation. This was only a few days after having watched a video from someone else, TheAmazingAtheist, which was a critical rant about Christianity.
Personally, I'm getting just as sick of fearful, ranting atheists as I am of militant monotheists who insist that everyone must subscribe to their beliefs or die. I don't believe for one moment that YouTube should be silencing only the atheists and allowing Muslims and Christians to continue to speak, but I'd have no problem at all with it if they were impartial in shutting both groups up. Their debate is entirely subjective and emotional on both sides and benefits nobody.
Both groups need to accept that other people have every right to their own beliefs, and that if we don't want to accept their belief system, that that is a valid choice. I will also admit to being less sympathetic towards Islam in this situation; Muslims have never been willing to accept the idea that other people should not have to accept their belief system, and I really feel that the only reason why the atheists are being as vocal as they are is because of how threatened they are feeling. There are some atheists who think that the only way that their belief system can survive is if monotheism ceases to exist. Richard Dawkins is only the most prominent of these, but there are many others as we're seeing here.
The Islamic world needs to accept once and for all the fact that, apart from anything else, the non-Islamic world is several times larger than it is. It would also seriously help Muslims' case if they'd stop behaving quite so much like the Borg. Resistance in this case fairly evidently is not futile; Charlemagne and the Knights of Malta were among the first to prove that, and other members of the non-Islamic world have managed to fairly consistently demonstrate it since.
To both groups, I say this. You can keep your own beliefs yourselves, but I am not either atheistic or Islamic, I have no desire to be, and I'm not going to be. Deal with it.
I also have no real sympathy for Nick Gisburne as an individual...from everything I've seen, the guy is a whining pain in the neck, and I can also remember thinking what a truly moronic jackass TheAmazingAtheist was when I was watching his rant a few days ago. The rest of you might say that Gisburne being obnoxious as an individual isn't the point here, and that it's free speech as a principle that's at stake. What you're not seeing is that as someone else said, YouTube aren't a government, and Nick also wasn't paying them for the hosting service. He has plenty of other options for hosting his material, archive.org and p2p being only the two most immediately apparent.
You can promote crime all you want; you only run afoul of the law if (a) you know that your speech will directly incite someone to commit a specific crime, and (b) it is your intent to do so. IIRC.
For standing up to HSUS, which most people do not know is an animal rights group as opposed to an animal welfare group. I hope Amazon countersues on the basis that HSUS is atrtempting to violate free speech guarantees through extortive, frivolous legal action.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Is not a guaranteed right. The constitution only covers the right as it relates to governmental control, not private business.
Now, is it bad business practice to trample on its customers that are expressing themselves *legally*? Sure, but its their right being a private company to have whatever policy they want, even if it alienates their customers. If they start accepting governmental subsides ( or get declared a monopoly ) then i feel the rules change, but i dont think any of the companies in question are getting any )
And while i may or may not agree with what the 'speech' was about, i can always do business elsewhere due to their polices, thats my right as a citizen.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Wrong.
Take a look at what the largest Christian denomination believes about the bible. Pages 17 and 18 of the linked document in particular.
>>I know the Christians haven't exactly been nice to the Muslims, what with the Crusades and all...
I wouldn't worry about that. The Muslims were completely victorious each time. I don't see holding a grudge against people you beat. Though, I haven't talked with that many Muslims about the Crusades.
This part isn't historically accurate. Although the Crusaders didn't succeed in permanently "taking back" the "Holy Land," they did conquer Jerusalem in the First Crusade (massacring its people) and established a Crusader Kingdom for a long time with varying levels of power and size. Medieval fortresses such as that at Caesarea, in modern Israel, testify to the long-term presence of the Crusaders.
Revive the Constitution.
Just don't say anything about Scientology... or they'll bankrupt you and have California hunt you down on hate-crime charges.
Can I get an amen?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
What most people don't realize is that almost all of these "differences" and "contradictions" end up being spelling errors or alternate word usage (e.g. mountains/hills), and that the same difference in 100 manuscripts gets counted as 100 "errors".
2 Samuel 21:19 probably had "brother of" inserted into the English translation because:
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
You haven't been paying attention. Anti-semitism, Holocaust Denial and outright jew hatred are now pretty much mainstream on sites like Daily Kos and DU.
;) That is to say, it's on the radar of archetypical Marxist looney tunes, while those of us to the right of Trotsky quietly try to forget that it exists.
The Daily Kos is about as mainstream as the FSF.
The right to free speech does not involve the right to be heard. Folks have every right to complain to Amazon; Amazon, another legal person, has every right to hang up the phone.
He made a claim about 'most denominations'. You declared him wrong, and as proof, offered one source about one denomination.
I can also tell you, with certainty, that many catholics believe the bible is without error, regardless of what the official policy of the higher ups in their organization may say.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
..No one will be able to take that away from you, even though it's racist crap.
... I'd think a black guy should only be called a black guy if he either: a) wants to be called black (I have no problems people calling themselves christians, persian, or 'dude' so if someone not black wants me to call him black, fine by me) or b) has dark enough skin to be able to refer to him as black.. of course I'd much prefer to just call him by his name and not skin-colour, but if I had to describe him to the police..
who saw colbert report 02.08.2007 where Debra Dickerson criticizes barak obama for not being black enough?
Debra dickerson did not want to give barak the "black"-person stamp because his father immigrated from kenya. she said "in the american political context, "black" means the descendant of west african slaves brought to america"
- Is there an american political context regarding the condition of being 'black' or is this a whole new world of inverse racism?
Also, she wants him to be called an african-african-american, just to add to the contempt she's showing other black people who happen to be immigrants.
She goes on to say that this critique of hers is a way of critiquing "whites' self-congratulation" and not him.. because "we are embracing a black person when we're not really"
And that's a lovely bit of counterlogic to hide her own racism against other black people.. and I love the fact that colbert says "If you hadn't told me he wasn't black, I'd have thought that I was supporting a black person, and thus supporting all black people, but now I won't because he's not" - he should have changed that last bit to "because you say he's not"
And then she comes with the stupidest counter-logic that he's the racist for saying that?
I love what he says next "So it sounds to me like you're judging blackness not on the colour of someones skin, but on the content of their character, which I think realizes Dr. Kings dream in a very special way".
It's clear that she's the one who has the problem, but I wish that colbert could have made it even more clear.
Colbert could have put this debate to rest by asking her one question though.. are african people "black"?
funny thing is, I'd believe she would say "no"
- Regarding issue of faith, youtube, and the glory of freedom of speech, my view is that a) the atheist has the right to express himself on the net b) youtube has the right to censor whatever it wants to censor and c) I have the right to amuse myself as I see fit.
K.
It is called "Deism" and is based on a belief in God, and a rejection of human divinity and false prophets. (All humans claiming to be "prophets" are false. Prophecy isn't something you are, but rather, something you do).
... need I go on? any other religion with its chosen human figurehead.
Deism was so powerful once that an entire revolution was inspired by it and its focus on individual liberties, in a country ultimately called the USA. The USA's founders were mostly Deists (don't believe the lying propaganda of the Christians who claim the US was founded by Judeo-Christians). "In God We Trust", the deistic founders said. (Not "In Christ We Trust.")
Unfortunately the hateful Christians have usurped the Deistic principles and are dragging down the USA, the same way the hateful Moslems drag down a true belief in God -- stupidly favoring instead human princes -- in their countries.
Read the posting above where the guy who calls himself a "Christian" writes an incomprehensible statement where he keeps inexplicably interchanging the term "God" and "Christ." Who is it again that he follows? God, or Christ? I give up - there is no logic to Christianity. Nor to Islam, with its Mohammed. Nor to Rastafarianism, ith its Haile Selassie. Nor to
Mockery of false prophets is a healthy practice and tenet of Deism. Given that all of these fallible humans running around claiming they are somehow holy and more special than other humans are setting themselves up as false Gods -- and yes, I mean EVERY human prophet who has ever been deemed as such -- there are no human prophets, not now, nor ever have there been -- then if one truly believes in God the only rational reaction to these poseurs is to make fun of them.
Or, I suppose you could just follow a flying spaghetti monster, or whatever suits your fancy. But in the end it derives from the same impulse, which is rejecting all of these false Christian and Moslem and Whatever "ayatollahs" who are ruining the world.
The deistic of the world need merely become more organized, and chase the religious war-mongers back to the hells they came from.
I am a youtube addict and they ban accounts all the time. This got picked up because some neocon at slashdot saw another oppurtunity to bash Islam\Muslims. Typical conservative tactic. Whenever some white racist needed to bash blacks he would use "white people are not rioting on street"
So I understandably watched your Islam video on your website. But since I'm not a Muslim, I decided to watch your Christian video also to gain a point of reference.
Don't take this as a troll: I'm saying this to be helpful. Some nits:
The quotes from the Quran likewise shocked me, but I
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
"I am not sure why you feel the need to offend people."
Good point.
So why are Moslems offending Americans by calling the US the "Great Satan"?
Why are Moslems offending non-Moslems by calling them "infidels"?
Why is that insane jerk who runs Iran offending Jews by claiming the Holocaust didn't happen?
Why are Moslems constantly commiting acts of terrorism and barbarism against innocent people? Hmmm, I agree with you absolutely - I am not sure why they feel the need to offend people. Are you? Tell me, why are these violent so-called "religious" people being such offensive assholes?
Martin Luther King basically said, "Judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin."
It seems to me like those who are "offending" any religious zealots are doing basically the same thing. The character of religious zealots SUCKS! So of course they should be offended. Offending religious zealots is the only rational response to the offensiveness of their zealotry.
There is something truly perverse, sickly, and un-Godly wrong with someone who offers violence in response to a mere cartoon.
When, oh when, oh when, will the few Moslems who have a sense of humor (if any) rise up against their humorless violent zealot cohorts?
The fact that there are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity 99% of which use the exact same Bible should make it obvious that using the scripture you can validate anything, no matter how moronic or terrible it might be. You can justify anything with faith (irrational belief), and can get most people to follow you with the fear of eternal hell fire.
Christians like to think of themselves as the sacred protectors of tolerance, and understanding, but their bible only teaches that 10% of the time, the other 90% is stuff like this:
Isaiah 13:15-18
Probably the best part of the bible is the soft core porn of "Song of Solomon", and the homosexual affair of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel, "they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded." - 1 Samuel 20:41.
If you must!
But they're not Congress and they're not creating laws to suppress speech.
The poster states, "Two stories in the news offer contrasting approaches by Web companies to questions of free speech," and continues with stories about YouTube and Amazon.
... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....
By "free speech" one must assume that the poster refers to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "Congress shall make no law
Neither YouTube nor Amazon are Congress and therefore there is no question of free speech.
Why is this simple distinction so often missed, even among the cognoscenti?
- Eric Rudolph
- James Charles Kopp
It's not that Christians don't blow things up or kill folks, it's that they tend to target individuals to send messages, but Islamic Extremists have a greater tendency to cause widespead terror, have a lesser regard for collatoral damage, and because of their devotion are more willing to sacrifice themselves in the process are the attributes that make them considerably more dangerous. Christians want to see the affects of their actions so they can feel even more righteous (IMHO).To Alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
While you all may take this opportunity to spew your various comments about religion and religious zealots and terrorists and cencorship because YouTube pulled an account...it is in fact NOT cencorship! YouTube is owned by a company, and has NO legal obligation to allow your post or anybody elses post to be viewed. If enough people complain about a prduct (in this case the aethiest's video) then the company has a *business obligation* to it's customer base to remove the offending material. By the same manner, a newspaper chooses which letters to the editor to print...and it is usually based upon the known biases of the general readership (liberal / conservative or what have you). The problem is not with YouTube trying to protect their interests - and, my friends, lets BE REAL - Islamic TERRORISTS - not ALL Islamic people, but THE TERRORISTS - tend to want to kill and blow things up when they feel they have been offended. Recently three individuals who CLAIM to be former terrorists spoke at the University of Michigan against terrorism and about the dangerous of RADICAL Islam. Guess what? ALL of them have death threats against them. It's a fairly common response to attacks on Islam. FURTHER...all you whiny little people that love all the free services that are offered to you need to move out of mommy and daddy's house and start paying or your own life. All right, all right...not all of you who will disagree with me live at home...but WHO in the world EVER said you have the RIGHT to DEMAND that company x MUST do things for you for free? You demand free health care (of course you will pay for it in higher taxes...duhh) and you demand a world free of conflict (a nice thougth, but just assinine in it's very nature) and you think you should be able to do and say whatever you want and yet when someone speaks out against your thoughts...they have to be silenced. Perhaps you've heard that the Democrats, those bastions of multi-culturalism, want to re-institute the fairness doctrine....why? Because there is too much free speech for them - AND THEY JUST WON??!!?? WTF?? Anyway - BRAVO TO YOUTUBE FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING!! TO H311 with all the whiners...NO CENCORSHIP OCCURED HERE!
"bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot, bigot" does not an argument make.
no not youtube.. the gisburne guy, and the other guys who "think outside the box", why else would they censore them, if he was wrong they'd let the videos stay so he'd make a fool of himself.. thats censoreship for ya.
While the FSM site is logically just as good a religion as any other, it just won't fly in the real world. The very reason for its existence explains its ultimate failure as an acceptable religion. To wit; The world is full of "regular people".
While Pastafarianism sells a few T-Shirts, and gives y'all a laugh, no one would seriously consider "converting" to that "religion".
I could be wrong, but I think a reasonably thought out "religion of reason" could be implemented. I mean would it be so bad to couch the principals in terminology acceptable for "the masses", without actually twisting the the truth?
The reality of the world is that things boil down to politics, and that means saying something like "Our idea of God is the eternal pursuit of knowledge" or some such. Not an in-your-face "God doesn't exist". Do you see the difference? I hate to say it, but I think you need to add a dose pragmatic political consideration to the purity of scientific ideas to "sell them".
I guess all I am saying is that I hope that the truth will win out in the long run, but I don't think the unvarnished truth stands much of a chance with most people.
In the words of George Carlin; Think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are stupider than that. - I would just like to add, And about one quarter of them vote!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Only governments can censor. The First Amendment can only be violated by governments. Freedom of speech does not include the right to use someone else's soapbox for free. Freedom of association includes the right to exclude anyone from one's company (except certain "protected classes" of persons, in certain commercial settings). Nothing in law or corporate charters requires Google or YouTube to stand up for your civil liberties. If you want them to do so, try to work out a retainer with their corporate counsels.
Well, in the case of Amazon, they aren't violating anyone's freedom of speech. The callers can still say whatever they want - but freedom of speech doesn't entail that Amazon or anyone has to listen.
On the atheist columnist, it seems to me that one of these days Christians are going to notice that religions where some of the membership have a reputation for extreme violence tend to get more respect in public from those who don't wish to be violated. After the "success" in Spain by pseudo-Islamic terrorists, the Basque separatists noticed that bombing people gets you what you want and promptly abrogated their anti-terrorism pledge.
Pretty soon the Church of Bob will be blowing up people who don't take them seriously enough. Don't draw Bob with a corncob pipe anytime soon.
This isn't a free speech issue. This is a getting-your-speech-published-by-Youtube-for-free issue.
Don't respond negatively to this comment or you'll be impinging upon my right to speak freely on Slashdot. How free can speech be if just anyone's allowed to refuse to publish it for free or say bad things about it?
One denomination, which just happens to be by far the largest. I provided far more evidence than him who offered no source at all.
Other major denominations (orthodox and Anglican for example) share a similar point of view to the Catholic Church. This church on England document on training clergy seems to take it for granted that there is a diversity of views on the authority of the bible (see page 9). The orthodx churches are more conservative but still far from taking a fundamentalist approach.
Of course if you modified his statement to "lots of tiny denominations, mostly American based or influenced, that are in no way representative of Christianity in general", I would have no problem with that.
I can also tell you, with certainty, that many catholics believe the bible is without error, regardless of what the official policy of the higher ups in their organization may say.
Yes, with hundreds of millions of Catholics in the world, I am sure you can find "many" stupid ones.
I have been a Chatholic most of my life, and I have met very few who think that. You must only know particularly stupid or ignorant Catholics.
Anyway, now I have produced multiple sources. Can you or the GP produce any?
Um, out of curiosity, where exactly did you get the term "Univeral Catholic Church" from? According to the Roman Catholics, all followers of the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are going to hell (and more than a few Protestants believe that Catholics are going to hell) so I don't see the point of grouping them together in one overarching label. You claim that the Mormons don't believe in a trinity, but I don't think it matters much--a great many Protestants don't believe in a trinity, either. (Many I've met view the "Holy Spirit" concept as a Catholic invention.) The Arians (no, not the *Aryans*) rejected the Nicene creed even more strongly, but they are still widely referred to as "Christians."
Regardless of their stance on the trinity, I do know that Mormons accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior (and they do not venerate Joseph Smith above him) and they apparently use the King James bible because they are one of the only groups I could find that were actually giving them away for free (the rest of the "free Bible!" offers are for some other "modern" translation, often with sprawling notes to help 'clarify' what certain passages mean.)
I question your metric. You lump together groups that vehemently deny each others' validity and righteousness and use their common ground to exclude Mormonism. You might as well lump Catholicism together with Hinduism--hell, they're both Polytheistic (saints=thinly veiled lesser gods.) And if it's the Book of Mormon that gives you trouble, well, the Catholics have additional books not found anywhere in the KJV, too. I'm not the slightest bit biased--I'm an atheist myself, I think that Joseph Smith was a painfully obvious fraud, and the anti-drug crap is pretty stale--but your criteria, your line in the sand for Christianity is rather weak.
Actually, I just checked wikipedia and their number 1 belief is listed as "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." So how exactly do you believe they violate the Nicene Creed? A cursory glance reveals nothing that damns the possibility of future prophets or testaments.
If you accept Jesus as your savior, you are a Christian.
Anything else is fluff.
Ri-iight.
And there are so many martyrs (saints or otherwise) in Christianity because the Romans did not like the way Christians styled their hair, huh ? The persecutions and murder of Christians before the Roman empire turned Christian by decree had nothing to do with differences in belief ?
Christianity just continued an old pagan tradition, they did not invent the concept of heresy. Just like they did with so many other old pagan traditions.
And I'm sure the Old Testament has some passages about what believers should do to apostates. That was well before that Jesus guy was born and told stories about lost sons, forgiveness and all that.
[Posting annonmously to preserve MOD Points, user = L33t_F33t]
You do realise the crusades weere more politcal than anything else, right? For hundreds of years muslims controlled "The holy Land" and the christians didn't care, as we were still granted access. The problem was when the turks invaded, and stoped us from entering. It was a war against the turks, not against Islam.
There is another way to look at the Palestinian/Israel trouble.
On one side, there is a bunch of terrorists attacking Israel. On the other side, you have an entire army, controlled by the elected government, attacking Palestine.
In Israel they also elected a government more likely to attack than talk.
There is no easy solution for this conflict, and if you are taking sides, it is a clear sign that you are no longer interested in helping solve it.
...but who has time to blow stuff anymore up when all of those little boys are just waiting to be touched?
I don't recall thousands of Christians taking to the streets and burning everything in sight when the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" came out.
Probably because it didn't show Jesus as a bomb-toting terrorist. But they did, however, launch a preemptive war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Seriously, you guys need to get over this holier-than-thou persecution complex.
Anti-semitism, Holocaust Denial and outright jew hatred are now pretty much mainstream on sites like Daily Kos and DU.
Criticizing Isreal != antisemitism, you lying sack of shit.
They elected a terrorist government when they could have had peace and a real country of their own, let em live with the consequences of their stupidity.
A "real country of their own" involves water rights, 1967 borders, and the Right of Return.
Well not anymore. They used to burn you at the stake, go on crusades, and generally kill anyone that was not christian.
You're absolutely correct. In order to get an equal comparison between Islam and Christianity, you have to compare modern-day Islam with medieval Christianity. Once you turn on the time machine solely for the Christians, then the two religions look pretty similar.
Though I don't remember the Inquisition ever choosing to execute victims of rape, so the comparison still isn't perfect.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Christians INVENTED the concept of "heresy", murdering people who believe very slightly differently than the way you do.
But Christians have completely dropped the ball when it comes to enforcing that invention. Muslims, on the other hand, have perfected the concept of heresy (ijtihad) and made good on it, many times over. Please give credit where it is due! Perhaps you are aware of the prophet Muhammad saying, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him"? It's found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as well as many other Islamic sources. (Did Jesus ever say anything like that?)
YouTube has been banning anti-Muslim videos much more often than anti-Christian videos because the anti-Muslim videos have been MUCH more offensive and racist.
What race is Islam again?
YouTube has rules against posting offensive and racist videos.
And the method of enforcing these rules shows Youtube's / Google's ulterior motives. "Christianity is the enemy, therefore Islam must be defended" is what they are standing up for. They shroud this in the "we ban offensive and racist material" bullshit. And it is most certainly grade-A bullshit.
Honestly, it's fine with me if Youtube / Google is run by progressive liberals. It's NOT okay with me if they support and defend Islam because they stubbornly and blindly cling to the ridiculous idea that Christianity is the greatest threat to human progress and happiness.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The GOSPEL OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER is in my bathroom, where it may be read by anyone who visits. I suggest that anyone wishing to contemplate noodliness might seek out "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
There is a big difference between the first amendment free speech and censorship by private organizations. The first amendment protects against government intrusion into speech activites. Hence, if youtube was a government run organization, the removal of the posting would violate the first amendment protections on free speech per se. This isn't so for private corporations, which is why your company can fire you for abuse of email privilages. Since youtube is run by google, and google is a private corporation, youtube can restrict access to the forum as long as it doesn't do so based upon classes of people entitled to protection [which is a separate part of the constitution BTW].
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
I have to reply:
So why are Moslems offending Americans by calling the US the "Great Satan"?
No Muslims in the US state that.
Why are Moslems offending non-Moslems by calling them "infidels"?
Ditto as above.
Why is that insane jerk who runs Iran offending Jews by claiming the Holocaust didn't happen?
He actually asked that the Holocaust be studied, not that it never happened. But I do agree, he is a nutter.
Why are Moslems constantly commiting acts of terrorism and barbarism against innocent people? Hmmm, I agree with you absolutely - I am not sure why they feel the need to offend people. Are you? Tell me, why are these violent so-called "religious" people being such offensive assholes?
Because when they kill innocents its barbaric, but when the US (or other Western powers) destroy governments (and as a consequence kill/hurt MILLIONS) it isn't considered 'barbaric'
Martin Luther King basically said, "Judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin."
Thats right. Iran, Chile, Venezuela, Iraq, etc etc - how come it was always the democratically elected governments that got overthrown only to be replaced by US-puppets?
There is something truly perverse, sickly, and un-Godly wrong with someone who offers violence in response to a mere cartoon.
I won't disagree with you.
When, oh when, oh when, will the few Moslems who have a sense of humor (if any) rise up against their humorless violent zealot cohorts?
They do. You (and everyone else) chooses to ignore em. But perhaps you should first stand up to people like Rush and Ann Coulter
What if it's fairly easy to objectively show that some key parts of the "crazy nonsense" they've added is in direct conflict with the words of Jesus? Then can you really say the religion is "based on Jesus"?
For the record, the particular words of Jesus I'm talking about relate to marriage after death. The LDS ("Mormon") church is very clear that they think marriage continues after death. In fact, it's a key part of their religion. It's not an exaggeration to call it a cornerstone of Mormonism. (I have personally spoken to a man who converted to Mormonism specifically because it included this belief.) Jesus seems very clear on the subject as well, and it's also hard to mistake his intent since three gospel writers give almost the exact same version of this story: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The only problem here is that Jesus and the Mormons have the exact opposite position of each other. Mormons say marriage is eternal; Jesus says it isn't.
Now, I'm sure this has come up before, and I'm sure the Mormons have a way of explaining it, but I have a feeling it'll be one of those "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" kinds of explanations.
The problem with the Christian Persecution Complex is that it's disciples are bad at math. By this I mean that whenever people who happen Christians kill people, it's not because they are Christians, it's for "other reasons". Like Bush invading Iraq, the IRA in Ireland, the KKK in the U.S., the Rwandan Genocide, the innumerable civil wars and coups in Latin America. However, when people who happen to be Muslims kill people, it's always because they are Muslims. The Palestinians aren't pissed at Israel for stealing their territory, it's because they are Muslims. The Shiites in Iraq aren't pissed at the Sunnis because they lived for decades under a Sunni dictatorship, it's because they are Muslims. The Chechnians aren't fighting Russian imperialism, they are fighting because they are Muslims. And so on.
The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells in this country are bat shit insane, and they are rich old men in a stable, prosperous nation. They think that Christians are oppressed when they walk into a Target and see a sign that says "Happy Holidays." I wonder if what they would do if faced with the wars, the famine and the imperialism that Muslims put up with every day around the world.
Further, those who deify Jesus are accused by the Koran of making "Partners unto Allah" -- beyond idolatry this is blasphemy. Both are punishable by death. A quick read of the Koran would answer these questions for you.
Actually, that's not how it goes. The Quran is strongly against idolatry and deifying Jesus, peace be upon him. However, it does not say to kill those who do that. India was ruled by Muslims for centuries, but the country is 85% Hindu today (they didn't kill all the idolators), and Muslims ruled over Christians for millenia without much fuss in much of the world. There's been some fighting in places like Nigeria, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
There are pretty clear proclamations that those who don't follow Allah are to die just as those who don't follow Christ should be burned or "brought here" and kill them.
I call straw man. Where in the Quran does it say to kill those who don't believe? Mecca once had a majority non-Muslim population while the Muslims ruled, and there was no forcible conversion.
...and of course YouTube has now deleted THAT account too, and banned me PERMANENTLY.
The whole story is at http://www.gisburne.com/
Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion
That is correct. They did take and hold the city for less than two hundred years. I stand corrected.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
>>Actually, that's not how it goes. The Quran is strongly against idolatry and deifying Jesus, peace be upon him.
I said that. Jesus is cited as an idol (5:17), as well as some additional comments against specifically trinitarian Christians (5:72, 28:62-63) who have made Partners unto Allah.
>>However, it does not say to kill those who do that.
9:5?
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
>>India was ruled by Muslims for centuries, but the country is 85% Hindu today (they didn't kill all the idolators), and Muslims ruled over Christians for millenia without much fuss in much of the world. There's been some fighting in places like Nigeria, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
Certainly, if there exists a treaty and no aggression then there is no call for violence. Admittedly most of the violent verses are about Allah and how he will torture those non-believer in Allah, how the fire will be hot and how stupid they will feel for not converting. Duh, Islam... now when you ask for a shower you get molten lead! How foolish you were, to be blinded by Allah and unable to see the truth and get cast into the Fire.
>>Where in the Quran does it say to kill those who don't believe?
It does suggest you wait around for their infinite punishment and pain to start, rather than nudging it in that direction.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
9:5- "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
This applies to the Pagans of Mecca, who kept attacking the Muslims. It does not apply to Christians and Jews, because they are referred to by name in the Quran elsewhere, not as "idolators" ('muskrikeen' in the Quran)
"It does suggest you wait around for their infinite punishment and pain to start, rather than nudging it in that direction."
I don't get what you mean. Muslims have tried explaining their religion to others and calling others to join them, but God made it clear in the Quran that forcible conversion is a sin (2:256) and not accepted. If you're unhappy that God said He will punish the unbelievers, well, take it up with Him and not me.
Best I can tell, you're probably right. Though, I don't think Muhammad writing a book and claiming it was dictated by God should not be a claim accepted at face value as you did in your post. However, that's a side issue.
As for the core point of the last statement it is a rather parsing note. Sure 2:256 says no compulsion of religion, however 2:257 says if you don't believe you will burn forever. It's a little like Christians who say they don't hate homosexuality, God does... and they support God.
No pressure, but if you don't do this... you burn forever and ever in hell. Though, again, being false does really take the wind out of that sail. If you don't believe in the Easter Bunny you will get sent to Never-Never-Land and cut on by pirates!
Thank you for your input.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.