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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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
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.
You do realize that Amazon _didn't_ cave, right?
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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
Other than holding the most disproportionate amount of economic, political, and military power of any population in world history, you're absolutely correct.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
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!
Would YouTube have pulled this video before Google owned it? It's worth considering...
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.
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.
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 .
>>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.
"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)
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
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.
- 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.
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?