Slashdot Mirror
Network Solutions Suspends Site of Anti-Islam Film
h4rm0ny notes the furor over an anti-Islamic movie due to be released on the Web in the next week. After Pakistan disrupted YouTube worldwide over an interview with right-wing Dutch MP and filmmaker Geert Wilders, Network Solutions, acting as host as well as registrar, has suspended Wilders's site promoting the 15-minute film "Fitna" (a Koranic term translated as "strife"). The site now displays a notice that it is under investigation for possible violations of NetSol's acceptable use policy. According to the article the company's guidelines include "a sweeping prohibition against 'objectionable material of any kind or nature.'" The article describes the site's content before NetSol pulled the plug as a single page with the film's title, an image of the Koran, and the words "Coming Soon." No one but Wilders has seen the film to date. The Dutch government has distanced itself from the film, fearing Muslim backlash. A million Muslims live in The Netherlands. Wilders's party, which controls 9 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, was elected on an anti-immigration platform.
So, being SubGenius myself and rather abhorrent of any and all religions, does anyone else think that I can get NetSol to close down any and all religious websites that they currently host?
No? Me either, but hey, it'd be fun to try.
Hi, I don't give a fuck about some dutch movie. Now, back to the..uh..musliming.
Do we even need to see the movie to learn anything about Muslims? As far as I'm concerned these actions speak for themselves.
My only concern is that Network Solutions is so quick to censor their customers over something so trifling as an (anti-) religious statement. I have kept my domains at NSI for over a decade just because I was too lazy to move them to a better registrar, but in light of this they are losing my business immediately.
PS Please don't think I have anything against Islam exclusively. I was raised as Catholic, and I find that religion for more reprehensible. It's not that I'm anti-religion per se... I am merely anti war-mongering, fear-mongering, child molesting, brain washing, suicide bombing, etc.
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view. They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...
Nothing much interesting but if you follow one of the 'see also' links there's an old video interview where he talks about his views on Islam.
reilgion>?
Christians and Jews make convenient targets. Hindu and Buddhist would too. It is only the Islam religion that gets these kinds of consessions. Thats because they respond unreasonably and brutally.
Nice going you cowardly asshats.
"It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
No, as in Member of Parliament.
No, but they do go on psychological warfare, going apeshit at other religions for no good reason. Same with the Jews and same with the Muslims. They all do it.
As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant. You're talking about a minority of extremists. I'm talking about the majority. If you want to go down that route, the AmEvs took a developed nation's army into two (three if you include pakistan) nations for the sole purpose of teaching them our own point of view. Same idea as what the suicide bombers are doing, is it not?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Now replace the same word with "Catholicism". Then "Buddhism". Then "Liberalism". Then Conservatism"...
Censorship over mere ideals? Sucks no matter what angle you view it from.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Don't know about USA, but here in Europe Christians killed all male civilians (including young boys, all unarmed) in city of Srebrenica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_genocide), Bosnia, in 1994 only because civilians were - guess what - Muslims. It happened thanks to namely UN-appointed Holland troopers let Serbian terrorists go to city they were supposed to protect. UN declared it to be a genocide, first in Europe since WWII.
839*929
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view.
No, I guess they just go regular bombing.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
He he could just mod the film down to -1, Troll. That way it is, for all practical matters, censored.
This is not surprising coming from NetSol. NetSol will shut down hosting and even lock down domain names if enough pressure is put on it, without anything even resembling a court order to do so. Anyone holding Internet property through NetSol that is even remotely controversial or that is threatened by hostile entities seeking to shut it down should move expeditiously to a different host and registrar.
I'm offended by any material served by Network Solutions. Hence all their customers are in violation of the terms of service, so they should all be shut down.
How many complaints does it take to shut down a site? Let's pick one at random, and get it shut down. Then pick another...
If the Netherlands falls to intolerant predjudiced bastards, can Canada 'un-liberate' them, and give them back to the intolerant predjudiced bastard Nazis we saved them from?
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
"Same with the Jews and same with the Muslims" because if you belong to a group you are the group, right? i better get me a group quick
-- arstchnca
--
This is not censorship because Network Solutions is a private company that can choose what content it wants to serve. If the government banned the film from production or release, then that could arguably called censorship. It is ironic that the people crying censorship in the name of freedom want to take away Network Solution's freedom to choose what it serves on its machines.
nearlyfreespeech.net
The government can't save you.
... also means that people with different views can voice their opinion.
I don't like Wilders at all (he's on the same level as Jack Thompson), but NetSol's action is retarded, I hope Wilders will be able to stir up some trouble for NetSol.
Then again, why did Wilder host the same at NetSol in the first place? Wouldn't XS4ALL be a better place, at least they care about things like freedom of speech.
Someone made a film that consists entirely of Muslims protesting violently to stupid shit all over the planet? I'd say 15-20 minutes of film showing nothing but angry violent Muslims protesting stupid shit should be enough to paint them as stupid, to the point that anytime they protest anything the entirety of the rest of the world would laugh at them.
... well downright antisocial. As such I have less than zero respect for the god of a group of people that want to kill anyone that disagrees with them.
Seriously, not all Muslims are violent. Not all Muslims protest everyone else that does anything anywhere in the world that does not affect them. This whole 'insult to Islam' business is as out of control as political correctness in the US. We should start hanging signs up everywhere that state "Sharia Law not legal here" ()
The non-Muslim part of the world should be posting that loudly and proudly... to the point that ordinary Muslim peoples are ASHAMED of their violent militant Muslim friends. When other Muslims tell them to STFU and sit down perhaps the rest of us can stop worrying about stepping on the toes of Muhammed, prophet or otherwise.
No, I do not for an instant believe that Christians or Jews are any better. All the BS about Mr Gibson's movie was stupid. The crap about The Davinci Code was idiotic. The bruhaha about 'The last temptation of Christ' was ignorant. All of these religious groups that are claiming sacred right to this and that and feel they are being insulted actually need to adhere to the words in their books. Oh, but that's the problem... they think they are. Well, for all their 'righteousness' the have surely fucked this planet up.
If you feel insulted, take it as a reason to ponder for a few moments how well you live your religious beliefs. If you think I left your religion out SMACK!! You too can go ponder your religious beliefs. If when you are finished you still find that you are right to be intolerant of other people's belief systems I have a friend with a gun store and plenty of single use bullets. Use these to massage your temples and all will begin to get better in the world.
Personally I'd like to see more people making fun of ALL religions. ALL of them. If your god is almighty and doesn't want anyone to make fun of them, or tell jokes about them, or in some way portray them in ways that you don't like... well, then I suggest your god come right on down here to little old Earth and tell me about it in PERSON. I will not accept the likeness of his mother on a piece of burnt toast or a water stained wall as a sign. I will not accept that a human prophet speaks for an ALL POWERFUL god. If your god does not want me to draw cartoons or make films, he can come down and explain it in PERSON.
Perhaps that is the problem? god doesn't come down and explain things in person so when there is a challenge to god's authority religious zealots have to act before someone points out that there god is not much good at protecting his image, never mind the feeble lives of his followers?
If that makes you wonder about god... good. I do not want to believe in anything or entity whose supporters are so violent, militant, dogmatic, ignorant, disrespectful, hateful and
Yes, I know that only a small group of people hijack religion to server their militant causes. My point is that others of whatever faith should be rising up to stop such people from ruining their otherwise good intentions.
Final point is that when good people let bad people ruin their faith and do nothing to stop it, it denigrates all of them. Where are those Muslims that renounce violence? Where are the Muslims that renounce suicide bombings? Why did the Iranian vigils after 9/11 get no real news airplay?
Thanks to all the high profile religious people in the world, Atheism is the fastest growing set of beliefs in the Western World, if I can say it that way.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Time out there dude.
Lets be clear about something. Most muslims, as in an overwhelming majority, don't want to have anything do do with violence. Unfortunately, it only takes one small group to do some pretty horrendous stuff.
Note also, that most muslim violence is directed against other muslims.
Yes there is a problem with poor levels of education, and also that religious leaders can spin any old line of bull and have it believed in its entirety by large numbers of muslims, but if we are to be honest, christians do the same thing quite often, especially some of the christianity 2.0 people. Ok we don't do the suicide bomber thing, but again, neither do the vast, vast majority of muslims, many of whom are just folk. Once again, most suicide bomber attacks are directed against muslims.
What's really going on, in my opinion, is a muslim civil war, orchestrated by powerful people who'd rather like it if only their flavour of beliefs were allowed, oh, and that they be rich and control the entire muslim world. We should butt out and let them solve their own problems.
Let him show his film, but please force him to stop bleaching his hair, and going to Milosevic's and Eltsine's hairdresser.
And I would say...they aren't Christians. There is nothing in the Bible that gives them leeway to do what they did. However, the koran specifically tells Muslims to kill infidels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm02UAgEJFs&NR=1
Neither do we.
Read a fucking dictionary. This is absolutely censorship. What you meant to say is that this isn't a Constitutional Free Speech issue.
...because if they hadn't then I never would've heard of this movie.
Nothing like censorship to bring a lot of attention to something.....
Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
Until the formation of the Nation of Israel, the Jews weren't in any position to engage in the listed activities. Now...now they use a *real* army. And instead of terrorists, they have an intelligence service.
The christians haven't been so limited. But they still prefer to use real armies and real intelligence services.
Do you think it's really about religion? It's US vs THEM. Any "us" you pick. It's not the power that corrupts, it's the immunity to consequences. Peer pressure helps. Riots used to be common after a high school team lost it's game. Now it's less so, as the local community is less supportive. (They've got professional teams to watch on TV.)
This violence *is* common in muslim countries, but not only muslim countries. It's probably related to polygamy, where the less successfully aggressive males are denied all access to women. (Look for an increase of this in China in the coming decades. Different reason, but the number of male children is far higher than the number of females.)
All THAT said, yes, the Koran explicitly encourages violence against the non-muslim. Read your bible. It does the same thing. Less so in the new testament, but the christians have, if anything, been more violent than the jews. This probably dates back to the christians out-competing the mithraists for dominance of the Roman Empire. Ever since then christians have had considerable conventional military power in their hands.
There is only one "religion" that has arguably decreased the amount of violence and that's Buddhism. Even there, it's dubious. One could argue that the violence just became secular. (OTOH, the various schools of hand-to-hand combat were developed because the secular authorities felt it necessary to prevent the Buddhist sects from forming their own armies, so they made it illegal for monks [or peasants] to carry weapons.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You hit the nail on the head. This guy is flamebaiting. And everybody who bites is making things a bigger deal than they actually are.
Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people take him seriously, politically. It's one thing to want to get attention for important issues. It's quite another thing to make an issue where there hardly was one and act like a total ass just to get attention. This guy is a troll, and, fortunately, more and more people are seeing that.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view.
No, just an abortion clinic or two. They're too cowardly to blow themselves up with it.
They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...
No, but they've come pretty close.
What?
Just give me the Adsense revenue and I'll put it up offshore somewhere and... 3. PROFIT!!
Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
Please post your list of terrorist attacks by Christians and Jews.
The destruction of the Canaanites
The Crusades
The Inquisition
The Portuguese slave trade
The "Discovery" of America and the Christianization of the "Indians"
The British/American slave trade
The Colonization of Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Orient
The Opium War
The "Lost Children" of Australia
The creation of Israel in the middle of Palestine
At least recently we have graduated to killing in the name of money instead of that other god.
cat * >> sig
here is the list you requested: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html Please list a thousand islam has killed for every 1 on that list. I look foward to it.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Christianity 2.0 - a recent revision and in need of far too many bug fixes.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
You are what is known as a troll. Again, the vast majority of muslims don't agree with what one sect of the religion believes in.
The fact that the mods are moderating your comment up despite the rather bigoted analysis you just presented ("religion of hate") shows the state of fear around the world thanks to people who commit these outrageous attacks and the people who propagate fear (you) in order to profit from the attacks.
I'm personally not committed to any particular religion myself; the Abrahamic religions have the same focus, so why should I follow one and exclude the rest?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
I'm not religious in the least, BTW, but this moral equivalence bullshit has got to go. Even the worst Christian organizations on this planet are not as violent or radical as "moderate" Muslims.
"American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view"
Yup. They just leave the bomb at the abortion clinic.
also in terms of how many christians have killed, you guys are just as bad, if not worse than islam. crazy witch hunts, crusades, and intolerance for religion. its funny you call islam the religion of hate when it was islam that tolerated multiple relgions within the empires they conquered. the christians wouldnt tolerate it. lets not forget its the same god they worship.... the best religion is keeping your personal beliefs to yourself and respecting others for theirs. but all these world relgions are so wrapped up with promotional dogma and intolerance that it creates war, murder, and they even justify it with god (just like they did with Jim Crow Laws).
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
I'm getting sick of registrars acting as the morality police.
Personally, I think this one stupid move has given the anti-Islam film a ton of free publicity. I'll be snatching it off the Pirate Bay the minute it's released by the producer, and you can bet your bible I'll be seeding the everloving crap out of it. I don't care whether something is right or wrong, in all likelihood this movie will be a steaming pile of racist filth like its creator, but the point is: censorship is even worse than racism in my opinion.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Got any stats to back that up, or are you just pulling opinions out of your ass?
Here's a suvey of "moderate", American muslims. If these are the opinions held by Muslims who have lived in, and, theoretically, been further liberalized by exposure to our society, how do you think the rest of the Muslim world would answer these questions?
That's not how I recall events.
What I heard that happened was that the Dutch UN soldiers were in Srebrenica, lightly armed and not authorized to open fire. They radioed for back-up from the other UN (and NATO?) forces, but got nothing.
It must have been terrible being one of these soldiers: knowing it is your duty to protect these people, but not allowed to open fire, and not receiving back-up, despite supposedly having allies nearby. Supposedly, they got the medals in recognition of that.
The medals certainly weren't pinned on them in a move by the politicians to save their asses. Far from trying to save their asses, the whole Dutch government resigned is response to a report about the incident.
Maybe it is my national pride (I am Dutch - and, as many Dutch, I have little national pride, but I do have some) that is being injured here, but I don't think it's fair to blame it all on the Dutch. Sure, it's convenient; the Dutch were there, so it's all their fault. But the Dutch weren't there alone: this was a UN mission, and so it was ultimately the UN and everybody who was there that failed. Yet I hear nothing about that. It's only the Dutch who are getting the blame.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It's absolutely accurate. Remember Salman Rushdie? Remember four days of murderous riots over a cartoon? And Islam is called the religion of peace.
Some asshole(s) took their dissatisfaction with the link in my sig to the University's administration... It being a university, rather than a commercial enterprise, I was merely forced to add an obvious disclaimer, that the views on the page are my own, rather than the school's...
Curiously, my request to see the complaint itself was denied on the ground, that there would be no way to preserve the anonymity of the complaining party(ies)... Any lawyers out there willing to file a FoIA-request on my behalf (the school is a government institution)?
These attempts to use the legal system and/or bureaucracy to shut the unpleasant views down are a welcome change from killing fellow country-men to make a point — as is happening in Iraq. But if anybody is hoping to score sympathy-points doing it, they are doing it all wrong...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Who knew?
From my journal:
Free speech is doomed
And so is freedom in general, if we allow this to continue. I simply cannot overstress the need to find a workaround to the corporate/government control of the internet. We must eliminate the need for the ISP with community wireless, and we also need a way to put up information without the need for a far off hosting company that cut you off without notice. Free speech must be completely, absolutely...uh...absolute. Those who can't see the infinite divide between words and deeds are as blind as blind can be. If you can be provoked into committing violent acts by words, then you are an animal, a dirty, filthy animal that should be put outside before you leave your steaming heap on the carpet. Let me see if I can put it another way: FREE WILL MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU HAVE IT??
I'm such a whore:-)
What?
Funny that, I distinctly remember a series of abortion clinic bombings, some pretty murderous tirades from the Phelps crew, and then there is that pesky problem with some of the more unethical things Christian missionaries have done and continue to do. From fake medicine to the occasional bombing, none of the religions that sprang forth from that area are exactly civilized. This of course only deals with the now, if we go ahead and examine some history we can cover a huge host of horrific things done in the name of Christianity. In fact "Kill them all and let God sort them out" came from a Bishop ordering his men to fire on a melee that included his own people and when they protested he told them "Kill them all, for God will surely know his own". So blow that shit right out of your ass...
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Don't know about USA...
I can help with this. In the USA, this did not happen.
Now you know.
I should clarify, since I made the same mistake I was complaining about:
Same with some of the radical groups within Judaism and Islam.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
No, they just get elected President and proceed to regular bomb "Islamofascists". Then they give Israel a bunch of free weapons to "defend" themselves from Palestinian "terrorists".
As you can read on the wikipedia page you linked, the dutch were hopelessly outnumbered (400 lightly armed soldiers vs 1k-2k serbs with tanks and morters). The dutch troopers weren't given the mandate, the manpower, the reinforcements or the air-support required to fight back.
I wouldn't know what I would have done in their place, and I hope I never will know. Either way, it shames me that the dutch and the UN were this toothless faced with genocide right under their noses.
This sig is intentionally left blank
Many Christians are incredibly aggressive about converting friends, neighbours, co-workers, total strangers. This isn't a trait specific to Muslims.
The Muslim people I've spoken to have been horrified by Islamic extremist violence. It seems to me that it's unlikely you personally know many Muslim people. What qualifies you to speak for the majority of Muslims?
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
As some of you might remember, in 2004 a well-known writer director and supplier of social criticism, Theo van Gogh, was murdered by a radical islamist, because he spoke out against aspects of islam that he felt were barbaric. Although you could call me a leftist, I vehemently support Wilders, because he's defending our right to speak out against religion where other politicians pussy out. Simply put, I'd like to be able to go on TV or write a column that talks about women's rights in the middle east without getting shot on my way to work the next day.
Hurry up, take down offending content! We're so sorry Muslims, we didn't realize our free speech enraged you so. We promise we'll never do it again! Praise Allah!
There's a million muslims that we know about. In reality, there's probably double that number. In a country of 16 million, that tends to change our society. Go for a walk in any main street of any city and see for yourself. There are now more mosques than churches in this country, and two thirds of the kids in school in Amsterdam are non-white. Instead of repeating what other people say about the maker of the film, read about what he really says. In my opinion, he has a point, and he's right. He's not racist, he just cares about our own society, as I do, and don't want to see it dragged back to the 17th century.
/. please.
What this has to do with technology, I don't know. Delete this whole subject from
I realize there isn't any comparison in terms of numbers of such actions - but this guy did bomb those he didn't agree with...
See, I wouldn't have a problem with his 15 minute film if he...
if he said what you wanted to hear instead of what you don't want to hear.
That's what censorship is. That's also why we have free speech protections in the USA -- because speech that everyone wants to hear doesn't need protection. It's only the "flamebait" and other stuff that someone might disagree with that needs protection.
Great link. Very shocking stuff.
I didn't speak on behalf of them. Re-read what I wrote... I suggested asking muslims, in moderate muslim countries, who are surrounded by other muslims sharing their beliefs. Furthermore, I doubt you'll get the same responses from North American muslims for various (mostly obvious) reasons.
Believe it or not, there are a ton of Christian terrorist groups.
Let's see:
KKK - (Burned, bombed, decapitated) They claimed it was their god given right. Slave owners did the same
Army of God - (Use deadly force to blow up abortion clinics)
Nagaland for Christ - Terrorist attacks against Indian Army (the largest demacracy in the world)
Tsar Lazar Guard - First uniformed Christian "militia" group. Classified by NATO as a terrorist organization
God's Army -a Christian revolutionary group in armed rebellion against the military government of Burma.
National Liberation Front of Tripura - Ethnic cleansing and bombings
North Ireland Terrorism - Long before arabs started it, the protestants were bombing the catholics
Lord's Resistance Army Lord's Resistance Army - Torture, Rape, use of child soldiers
the list goes on....I remember the October group or something in Greece had a large christian motive against the orthodox church, also that armenian group that bombed several masks in turkey and killed 3 university students (anti islam christians). Chstrian god is the same as islam, and so is there history and modern acts of terrorism. theres a ton in south america, you just don't hear about them becuase u live in a pro-christian country where a recent survey indicated that Gays were hated less than atheists...http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/24/atheists-hated-more-than-gays-muslims-all-other-groups.htm
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
> Oh really? How many riots were started over Piss Christ?
I see this example brought up every time the sort of topic comes up.
The sad thing with the state of the affairs in the Western world is that there really were no massive protests over it and the the Western world is somehow actually proud of this fact.
It is an utterly disgusting piece of work and every Christian and non-Christian that didn't riot over it should be ashamed of themselves.
And an even sadder thing is that there would have been more protests and/or riots had it been a figure of George Bush in that jar.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Last time I saw religion discussed on /., the Bible wasn't considered a work of historical fact by most people.
I actually agree with the argument that people acting in the name of Christianity have caused huge amounts of deaths, on a par with or even exceeding those caused by people acting in the name of Islam. But what's the point of backing up this argument using sources whose contents (even many Christians agree on this) are often mythic, legendary or metaphorical?
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Why should the film maker have to cover the flaws in the other two Abrahamic religions? For one, he might not be as personally related to the other religions, or maybe just doesn't know much about the other two. Maybe he's decided to let someone else fight that battle. For another, flamebait would be saying "Muslims are the suck" and not explaining why. You haven't seen the film, so you obviously can't know if it's flamebait or not.
The problem with using Israeli examples to illustrate Jewish religious terrorism is that Israel is not a religious state, and not all Jews are religious. To compare like with like, you must compare violent acts by Muslims and Christians with violent acts by religious Jewish groups, not just by Jewish or Israeli people.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Well, you must prescient, just like NetSol. Nobody has seen the film yet. Maybe god told you what it is in a vision?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Is this AFTER the Muslims came in and killed anyone not Muslim that was a male and then threw out the rest of the families in the street so a "true Muslim" could live in the house? A very good friend of mine got the honor of living in a "public" park for a year while she and her daughter tried to flee to the U.S.A. So, you had tons of "anyone not Muslim" being killed or forced out of their homes, most of which were and are Christians. Some of those Christians united and fought back. Christianity does not promote this and actually con dims this action.
I will say that generally people that hate each other tend to use religion as a motivating factor to get people to rally around their cause and war. I can't speak for Muslims, but Christians, specifically Catholics are opposed to almost any war. The last Pope (John Paul II) who lived through WWII and saw many horrible things even mentioned that it was ok to fight in a war but he had never seen an instance of a time when it was warranted. This coming from a man who saw Hitlers army crush Poland and kill many innocent people. Granted there are many different sects of Christianity and I will concede that almost every religion has their weird splinter groups, but the VAST majority of Christians (and I bet Muslims) do not promote violence in any way. Just the opposite they promote peace, sometimes at the sacrifice of their own lives.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Yeah your right...I guess for every theory that becomes a law in science a religion becomes a myth.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
I did read what you wrote. You said: "Ask most moderate or 'peaceful' Islamists how they feel about the Americans or Danes getting killed, and they'll typically have a look of satisfaction. I'd consider it an overwhelming majority that are not against violence, as long as it's perpetrated against non-muslims."
"they'll typically have a look of satisfaction" - how do you know? Have you had the chance to ask most moderate Muslims? Of course not - there are thousands of them. So you are stating how a lot of people you don't know will definitely react. To my mind, that is equal to speaking for them.
"I consider it an overwhelming majority..." - what gives you the authority to make this judgement? If you said "I imagine it might be an overwhelming majority", you're just expressing your opinion and that's your right. But the way you phrase it, right after a positive assertion that Muslims are satisfied with American/Danish deaths, suggests that you are stating a fact, not a totally unfounded opinion.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
A hate crime has to have SOME criminal element to it. If I say 'Muslims suck', I made a blanket statement, but to even think of elevating it to a crime is absurd. Now, I can run around all day spouting blanket staments, and eventually people will learn that I am acting like a crackpot and have nothing important to say. (Example, Twitter). That is punishment enough.
To start deciding that unpopular content is a crime in itself is the first step in the end of free speech.
I've seen some of the cartoons, I have not seen the film. The cartoons are tasteless, they are not criminal.
No, indeed! However, they don't need to! They have cozy homes, nice technology, good wealth and influence over their government. If the opposition has F16s, Apaches, F35s, etc... I am sure they wouldn't blow themselves up either. Their appearance might be clean, but their hands are as dirty as it gets. They are the front runners in demonizing the Muslim world. This is one reason every country's political stance seems to be slipping towards nationalism and it is very bad. For me, the quote below sums up current affairs. "Why are you against freedom?" ~G W Bush
Yet one more time again, a company's policy over its own property is not censorship. It is an exercise of property rights. Renting said property does not give the renter the right to use it in a manner they disapprove of. He and we can disapprove of their policy, but that's all.
Censorship is a policy enforced against the information carrier from outside, forcing them not to carry something. While not censorship, forcing a one to carry content they deem unsuitable is just as much a violation of their rights of ownership.
The film maker has no "right" to use any given carrier. Where ever one finds the "right" to free speech on the net, it is either because one owns the carrier themselves, or is only the illusion of the right in the form of permission of the carrier to present one's material through their property. If the Dutch government tried to force its removal, THAT would be censorship. The Dutch government is one of the least likely to do so. Instead, they have "distanced themselves".
That said, NetSol is a lousy carrier in several respects. There are far better hosts. Using Wikileak's host or even piggy backing on Wikileaks itself is more likely to be successful. If he wants his stuff or material about his stuff seen, finding a suitable carrier will be more productive than trying to force NetSol to carry it.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
You know...for such a 'minority' of muslims....you sure can see a lot of them in the streets of the middle east, cheering suicide bombers, jumping and flaying about, with guns in hand in the streets on the tv.
I see so many of them on tv in various places of the world, behaving in such a manner, I have a hard time believing it is just a few on the 'fringe'. It seems to be pretty prevalent.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
....As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant....
Yes as irrelevant as all the changes to freedom after Sept 11. The terrorists want to take our freedoms. They will institute sharia law wherever they are able to become politically powerful enough to do so. They may not manage to do this here in the US, but even so we all are considerably less free now than we were before Sept 11. For their first big try at terrorizing the US and especially its government, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
All theory is gray
Sharia Law is a "hate crime" against women, non-Muslims and homosexuals. Who's the real "hate criminal" around here?
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
The DNC is objectionable. Scientology is objectionable. I don't see them doing anything abut that.
Censorship by anyone is objectionable. ( but not illegal since they are a private company, and yes i realize i'm stretching the definition of censorship because of this small fact )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
My wife was in the Dutch military at the time (not on that mission), and what she heard from her colleagues that actually were on that mission confirms your story. It really was a shitty situation.
Here's a whole load
It isn't a hate crime, but it is being really, really ignorant. Too bad you posted as AC, I'm compiling a list of ignorant fuckwits.
/rant.
Grandparent post had a very interesting take on this issue, and so-called hate crime in general. It's not one I agree with, though. Nonetheless some of his points are valid; as and atheist who grew up in The Number One Muslim Country (Saudi Arabia, and no, not on a compound) I really get annoyed when people bundle all Muslims into the same boat. Some of the most amazing people I met in my life have been Saudi nationals, most (officially, all) practising Muslims. I've never been preached to. No one has tried to convert me. I have never felt so safe as when I am with Muslim/Arab friends. It properly fucks me off to see all these Slashdotters, whom I would usually consider to be intelligent people, making such stupid blanket statements.
Incidentally, all religions are guilty of being overly sensitive (sorry Sallo); here in the UK we have a number of Bible Bashers that love to God-bother at everything from Jerry Springer The Opera to Gay Pride. Hey, it's their right, and I support that, but let's be very clear that there are reactionary fucktards in every religion. And before anyone starts up about how only the Muslims kill people, pull your (generally) Amero-centric heads out of the sand and look at, among other places, Northern Ireland. (Hey, how's that for hypocracy on my part!) Jews are just as prone to jump up and down, especially at any criticism of Mother Israel; that isn't really anti-Semitism but Medinat Yisrael uses it rather well to deflect critical comments.
Long post, short point - there's lots of assholes out there, and like it or not, some are of the same nationality/belief/creed as you. Call them out as such whenever you see them but don't be bigoted asshats.
JG
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
Can we just agree and summarize by saying that the world would be a better place without any religion? Just imagine ... (yea that song)
I suppose the "authority" that I assert to make my "judgement", or "unfounded opinion" as you put it, is experience.
I can just as well fill up my text with superfluous words to challenge your equally, seemingly unfounded opinion, but at the end of the day, all we have are our opinions, which are typically based from our experiences. Maybe I'm not asking the same muslims, in the same Islamic countries that you're having these discussions, but in my experiences most Muslims are challenging free speech, attempting to influence laws, and expressing satisfaction over the deaths of certain groups of people. Okay, maybe your Islamic area is a little more isolated or western-centric and don't yet feel satisfaction over the deaths of Danes or Americans... why don't you ask them how they feel when an Isreali is killed?
As someone else above hinted, a prohibition against "objectionable material of any kind or nature" cannot work. There is no possible way to know in advance what is objectionable to others... and you can just about guarantee that anything will at some point be objectionable to someone! So you end up censoring everything... and not just freedom of speech, but any speech at all gets suppressed.
That is why I do not support or endorse companies with those kinds of "agreements". They are unworkable, and in practice unenforceable. And in the attempt to enforce something unworkable, everybody suffers.
....No, just an abortion clinic or two.....
Nowhere in the Bible is there an exhortation to do such things. Christians are told to love their enemies. In the Koran, the Muslim bible, there is an admonition to kill infidels, ie. anyone who will not submit to Allah, their god. Islam means submission.
All theory is gray
Have you asked your doctor if Xanax is right for you?
You mean like this? How many protests were started because of that particular piece of "art"?
Maybe if you pull your head out of your ass, the world won't smell like shit any more.
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Deuteronomy Ch. 17:2-5
Nope, no leeway whatsoever. Christianity is the TRUE religion after all, not like those others.
Christian is not a protected term. Did the Serbs kills these Muslims in name of Christianity or despite of it?
If I had a sig, I would put it here.
Make no mistake, the resurgence of *any* religion is the end of progress or people toward freedom. All religion is about control. All religion is about hate. All religion is about making the peasants suffer in quiet while they dream of a better after-life.
Anyone that believes in a "religion" that professes non-sense like heaven or an after-life without any supporting real and verifiable proof is an idiot. Sorry to you believers, but you are fools of the worst kind and your belief or your support of such beliefs supports those who are far more radical than yourselves.
Anyone who gives any money of any kind to a religious based charity is just as guilty as the religious terrorists themselves.
You may say this is harsh, you my think this a troll or intolerance, but anyone who has studied history or current events will be forced to admit that all money spent by religious charities or missionaries, regardless of the stated purpose, is done for the single purpose of expanding the influence of the religion. Conversion by the sword, the destruction of central american cultures by "christian missionaries," the push against science in education, the push of christian doctine into U.S. law, islamist censors, etc.
You are all guilty, so stop whining. Being tolerant of any religious doctrine in the public sector simply invites more abuse of human rights. There's no half way, you either reject religion outright or you become a subject of it.
Thats the problem with religion, everyone interprets things to thier own whim. God kills all of the sodomites in genesis... actually instead of going over the 1000s of acts of violence i'll point you to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html . You know god does order man to kill women and children since the fighting men werent enough? But thats not killing infidels, no its killing sinners, unbelievers and their families. Christian God is obviously so much better. Now lets you post a link to a good 100pages of bloody cruelty in the koran please while i'm sure it has as much gore as the bible it irks me you didn't cite your baseless conclusion. Not that it matters since its JUST a book. God damn religious people are blind >.
One mans Free Speech is another mans Flamebait. He has no obligation to anyones idea of "fairness".
If I get to censor everything that hurts my pwecious wittle feelings then I can use that power to strangle YOUR free expression. Everything and everyone, self included, should be open to ridicule. Ridicule is not slander or libel, but it can be used as an effective technique to get people thinking about raging against (any) machine. Religions and other political ideologies (superstition doesn't make religion not political) must be open targets in any secular free society.
"He's flamebaiting people who are as protective of their religion as American Evangelicals are of theirs."
My Evangelical friends know I think their beliefs are superstition, but they know I believe in freedom to choose. No one has declared a fatwah on me yet. We don't have punishment towers (as in KSA) nor do we stone folks to death for adultery. The various Christian sects aren't setting each others children on fire to chase them out of the neighborhood...
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
...Most muslims, as in an overwhelming majority, don't want to have anything do do with violence....
That's because most Muslims don't follow all the tenets of their faith anymore than most Christians do. What percentage of Christians truly love their enemies or even keep the same marriage partner for a whole lifetime, "until death do us part"?
One of the tenets of Muslim teaching is that infidels (unbelievers, ie. anyone not a Muslim) can be FORCED to submit to Islam (which means submission). The ultimate force any human can exert on another is death.
All theory is gray
"Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
(Q8:12)
Yes, possibly a bit out of context, but while I'm too lazy to read too much of the koran, my quick search gave me many other similar passages...
It appears that site still can be reached at http://www.fitnathemovie.org/ or http://www.fitnathemovie.net/
"Hama Rules" were the only viable response to Muslim terrorism.
When guerillas swim among their supporters like the proverbial fish in the sea, one must dry up the sea. In an era of unconventional war, so-called "war crimes" are actually the proper response. We conveniently forget all the "war crimes" the Allies committed to win WWII, and the post-Nuremburg fetish for imposing laws only on our own side isn't getting us anywhere.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Ridicule of a religious belief or political persuasion is NOT a hate crime. I consider myself an agnostic science-is-religion libertarian - you can make fun of my beliefs all day long, draw cartoons of political leaders I respect or make jokes about those who I consider prophets (Newton, Darwin, etc.). I won't sulk around with hurt feelings or have promptings to harm anyone. Such absolute reverence to an ideology almost always ends in persecution and evil.
Further if you really feel you worship the "right" vision of God and this God is almighty why doesn't this God make a public statement and strike down such provocateurs directly? Why does this God need protection from puny humans.
Seems to me the Truth needs no local support but can stand on its own.
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. - 5:54
Believers!
Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers - 9:123
Translated from the koran. Citation needed is just a way of saying you're too lazy to look it up, and you're hoping the guy who posted is too lazy to look it up too--so you think you win be default.
There's no place like
h4rm0ny notes ... The Dutch government has distanced itself from the film, fearing Muslim backlash. A million Muslims live in The Netherlands. Wilders's party, which controls 9 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, was elected on an anti-immigration platform.
I dunno if anyone else noticed this but that line seems a little silly. There is a difference between fearing and not wanting to offend. Who says the dutch government fears this at all. Rather the government isn't totally made up of bigotted assholes. I like to think this as a possibility.
As for the video i want to see Wilder release a video about how Jewish people are violent and ruining the country. Just to see the reaction. But its perfectly ok for an MP to make a public video about his dislike for muslims. Yay racism...
oh fucking please. who the hell is suicide bombing because of a disagreement of point of view? you think the suicide bombers in palestine or iraq have ANYTHING to do with religion? i think it may have a little more to do with outside armies attacking them and their families.
The movie hasn't been seen by anyone yet except a bunch of politicians who can't say anything about its contents. This is really a failure on the side of NetSol, as there was no objectionable content hosted whatsoever (a cover image, a title and the words "coming soon", zomg, the horror!). If the upcoming movie is really offensive to some religious groups, then they've just fueled the backlash some more. It just gets worse with every news item about it, and this has been going on for months. See what happened in Danmark, no media circus means the muslims get mad about it 3 months late. Now even with NO MOVIE RELEASED WHATSOEVER there are already flags being burned: http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/buitenland/2008/03/protesten_tegen_fitna_de_fotos.html
And those who still want to burn a flag and haven't yet done so: Please get it right (the least you could do!): Red bar (not dark purple), white bar, blue bar, top to bottom! Don't be these guys http://forum.fok.nl/topic/1133672 Unless you add a star, in which case it's the SFR Yugoslavian flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_SFR_Yugoslavia.svg
> So you actually think that the proper way to critique art is through violent protests?
I think that the difference between "art" and that piece of work is of the same magnitude as the difference between a critique and a riot.
> Have you asked your doctor if Xanax is right for you?
Nah, I'm already on thioridazine, thanks - mixing it with Xanax would cause adverse effects.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
" negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime..."
No, it is mere insult. Insult is not a crime, except under Islam, which does not tolerate a wide variety of other Free Speech.
You are invited to make all the derogatory cartoons of me you like, and of my beliefs (I'm theism-free). It bothers me not.
I've deployed to the richest Muslim societies on the planet, and seen the best they can do under the guidance of your oppressive, barbaric, pseudo-Nazi superstition. I will not yield to demands to change our social discourse just because it is not on Islamic (or Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, etc) terms.
Your Prophet can kiss my fat white arse.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nice try at flaming. However, your article states that evangelical leaders condemned the bombing, and the identity of the bomber is not given let alone his religious affiliation. Assuming he is a Christian solely on the basis of his target choice is weak at best. Finally, 10 year old article?
captcha: distort (how appropos)
I just don't ever recall the likes of Billy Graham advocating from the pulpit to go out and bomb or commit violence against anyone.
I do,however notice that many muslim preachers (or whatever the hell they're called) seem to preach direct violence against the infidels. Heck, it seems the more famous and influential ones are the ones that advocate the greatest violence against non-believers.
I don't think you can say the same about the leading Christian leaders....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Does net SOL get any public funding at this point? Or are they strictly funded by their products?
If they accept one dime of public funds, i say they should be bound by the 1st amendment.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...I have to say I see it ALL in the same light. All this discussion about Christians did this, Jews, that and Muslims are commanded to kill in the Qur'an... it's all the same crap with a different brand name. With a few exceptions, what religion you are is largely a matter of what parents or environment you were born to. That could HARDLY be a matter of deist truth if the same god also created your "enemies."
If more people could somehow manage to take a step back from their own faith to look at the larger picture, you'd see you're truly no different from the rest.
Score of 2... interesting. Did John Lennon receive death threats for saying the Beatles were more popular than Jesus? Fascinating how statements are made without any proof at all. There were death threats regarding piss christ. What were the crusades? I'm sure if you look you will find numerous examples of brutality committed in the name of most religions. /she/it came up with that.
You appear to be no better than the radical muslims you hate, there were plenty of fine arguments as to why the take-down notice might be wrong (at least SEE the film before passing judgment) but to show such intolerance against ALL muslims - just because they are muslims.....
Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters.
Thought you might like that, from the koran (I'm a devout follower of all knowing all powerful GOOGLE). They worship the same god, they apparently believe in christ as well (but only as a prophet).
Being a true infidel myself (one who does not believe in god) unlike you, I believe in compassion, tolerance and forgiveness.
Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged. I think God was referring to the American Idol judges when he
BM3
Actually Christians and Jews are 'the people of the book' and have protected status under islam.
It's atheists who should be worried...
You are right that they don't go in for suicide bombing. After all, that would be a waste of all their bomber planes and missiles. If you don't think Americans* blow up random people who disagree with them, well where have you been for the last five years?
*Yes, I know not all Americans. Just the ones who decide where the bombs go.
Not Billy Graham perhaps, but one of the leaders of the US Christian church publically ordered the murder of Hugo Chavez.
Islam isn't the *only* religion that does this, clearly.
Here's how a certain prophet reacted to criticism. If you don't believe this is moral, then you are not a muslim (first pillar of islam).
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so `Umayr went back to his people.
Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).
Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. 'Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated.
Source
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view.
Oh yes they do.
They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...
No, but pretty close.
It looks like I get to exercise my right to tell Netsol to take a hike by moving to some other registrar. I've used netsol for 12 years and never realized they'd stoop to this. Godaddy is no better, and quite possibly, worse.
Can anyone recommend a registrar that doesn't have absurd terms of use?
to a social problem.
If he wants to put out the film, put it out on torrent.
The fact that Netsol was completely out of line is something else. I wonder who pushed them and wether this has been done before. This all irregarless of the subject the movie might handle.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You cannot exercise the same free speech rules when it comes to politically agendized Islam. That's called intolerance. Never mind that there's about 30 countries I am barred from entry to, simply by virtue of my religion - that's just 'ethnocultural diversity'. One would think that Holland with its 300 year history of no holds barred, freewheeling liberalism wouldn't cave to a tiny minority of people promising arson and death threats, but I guess this is the new Europe. Next up - burning the collected works of Jonathan Swift.
EVERYTHING is objectionable to someone. You either close down the entire Internet, or none of it. No picking and choosing in-between.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Not to sound offensive,but your speech is exactly the reason why Muslim immigration is seen as a plague by Europeans. Everything is "hate crime" and suddenly we must go to some sort of doublespeak sensitivity training to accomodate that.
"making derogatory cartoons of what's dear to me is NOTHING but hate crime"... this sums it up *perfectly*: anything anyone wants to say that displeases you should be considered hate crime, and as such forbidden. It sounds remarkably as a first step towards state-sanctioned Sharia law.
Maybe this comment is also hate crime? Who knows. What I *know* is that I can say that Jesus liked to dress in drag and had an affair with all of the apostles while smoking a joint and nobody wlil prevent me from saying it, nor will anyone - not even he "equally bad" Christians that are used as some sort of "they did it to!" scapegoat - try to kill me. But the moment I even *draw* a depiction off Mohammed I'm an hateful bastard who must be stoped because I'm infringing someones feelings.
There are places where this sort of behaviour is law. Saudi Arabia, for example. I would recommend to people displeased with my ability to say that Mohammed was a camel-sucking homo to move there.
PS: Just to be democratic, it's also perfectly legal to say that Jupiter likes little boys and Ariadne is a slut. Fine with me.
But American evangelicals have bombed and killed people who disagree. Here's a list of crimes against abortion clinics:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
And here are some hate crime statistics from the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html
Many of the crazier high-profile evangelicals have called people with different political views (read: anything remotely left-leaning) traitors, with the implication that they should receive a traitor's punishment.
It's also worth noting that while Islam is over a thousand years old, modern suicide bombing didn't appears until the 1980s, and it was just as popular with the secular Tamil Tigers as it was with Islamic groups in the Middle East. According to Wikipedia, the first suicide attack against Israel was by a Japanese communist group. So I don't think it's fair to say that suicide bombing is an inherently Muslim idea. It may be that the lack of American suicide bombers is more due to the lack of region-based internal conflict than anything else -- the population is so distributed now that there isn't as much of a base for terrorist operations as there was during, say, the pre-Civil War period, which saw things like cross-border raids between pro- and anti-slavery forces in Missouri and Kansas. Americans are perfectly happy to do all sorts of nasty things up close and personal, there just has to be something more important than the price of gas on the line.
Visit the
Nowhere in the Bible is there an exhortation to do such things.
Oh really?
Matthew 10:34-39
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
or Psalm 137:8-9
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Lots more where that came from. If all this is open to interpretation, then so is the Qur'an... or no?
What?
The average income in the Muslim world is $3,700USD. In the west it's around $27,450USD as of the year 2000 Ref.
One of the two things you can almost always correlate with crime rates is average income (the other is the number of young men in a population).
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Being dutch, this is what happened and I feel damn sorry for those people and for our soldiers.
:(
This was a huge tragic fuck up.
Dutch part: Ik hoop dat de soldaten hier over heen kunnen komen
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Consider also that the KKK is essentially an evangelical organization.
Similarly the vast majority of Muslims have never even thought of bombing as a suicide technique.
The idiots find religion as an excuse -- all, and any, religion -- it's not that any one religion is bad or responsible for the ills of the World. All religions have their zealots, and their lunatics.
Mod parent overrated.
Don't try to paint a whole group with the idiocy of a few.
:-) Thankyouverymuch...My thoughts exactly. If you go up the thread a little, you might see what I'm saying.
What?
Anonymous cowards don't need much incitement in order to send death threats to others. Religion is a good motivator for them, but hardly the only one. I was discussing instances of actual physical harm, not internet-tough-guy e-mails, or threatening letters. There's a massive difference between the two.
I show intolerance toward a ridiculous belief system which actively seeks to cause harm to others, yes. Just like in WW2 I would have shown intolerance toward Nazis and Shintoists, and just like I'm still intolerant of Marxists and Maoists. While I'm sure there are plenty of nice Nazis, Shintoists, Marxists, Stalinists, and Muslims, there's no escaping the fact that the beliefs which they espouse must either be fought against or submitted to. There's no halfway point. And if you think we should be coddling intolerant ideologists, you need to have your head examined.
Yes, you're a typical google-scholar: research a quote, spit it out in a forum, and pretend that you've just settled a 3,000 year old debate.
FYI, a major problem with Islam is that, in order to deal with discrepancies in the Koran, Muslim "scholars" have decided to asses the accuracy of their scriptures based on the order in which they appear, with the more recent portions superseding the older ones. In other words, if earlier in the history of the Koran it said to live in peace with all "people of the scripture", but then later on it says to "kill all infidels or make them submit", then the later phrase wins out. Unfortunately for everyone involved, it's the earlier portions of the Koran which are the peaceful ones, while the latter portions deal with Mohammed's Jihad against everyone and everything.
I guess you missed the part of my comment where I said I wasn't religious. Big surprise there - you're obviously only seeing what you want to see.
I don't really give a damn what "god" has to say on the subject. If you are unwilling to pass judgement, then you are a fool on whom the gift of a brain was clearly wasted.
Very true. The books of all radical religions deliberately contains wide range and subtle contradictory verses so that the leaders and clergies can easily justify whatever they want you to do. On some times and places, like religious sessions with their own people, they can pitch use of whatever means to defend the believe; on other times and places, like photo-ops with American politicians, they can pitch peace and appear as good people.
(Pointing out that you assume to know what the content of this film is before anybody has even seen it would be too obvious)
**TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
Speaking as a Discordian myself, I approve of people of all religions getting their panties in a twist and trying to blow each other to smithereens. It's exciting fun and makes for fantastic television. It would go against my beliefs to take any of these religious websites down. I therefore find it necessary to declare a counter-Fatwah on you! Double double neener neener to you, good sir. And all that.
Onward Christian Soldiers,
Onward Buddhist Priests.
Onward, Fruits of Islam,
Fight till you're deceased.
Fight your little battles,
Join in thickest fray;
For the Greater Glory,
of Dis-cord-i-a.
Yah, yah, yah,
Yah, yah, yah, yah.
Blfffffffffft!
Chaos is everywhere - the Goddess reigns supreme. =)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Dude..that is the OLD testament. Christianity is based on the NEW testament, not the old one.
An easy way to remember it...Christianity...following Christ. He was not in the old testament.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's interesting to see who you are calling 'brown shirts'. Mister Wilders is a lot more than plain 'anti-immigration'. One of the authors of his program is a self-declared follower of Carl Schmitt, the lawyer who doctored legal aspects of Hitler's 'coup' in 1933 in Germany. However, after writing the party-program this Bart-Jan Spruyt left, and later called it a shame that Wilders movement wasn't joined by the likes of Eerdmans (who's vague about any tendency to racism) and Pastoors (who is openly racist). Again later he called Wilders movement 'panic conservatism' and accused them of having a fear-driven natural tendency to fascism. One of Carl Schmitt's central dogma's is that politics needs an all-encompassing enemy. In case of Schmitt that turned out to be Jews, and Wilders has picked Moroccan moslims as his target of choice. I'd say Wilders PVV is as racist as the NSDAP in 1919. His target is different, but his ways are eerily similar.
The "US Christian church". Exactly.....which one is that? There are a number of denominations of Christian churches over here...but, I don't know of just ONE Christian church. Was this a Baptist or a Morman, or Presbyterian...Church of Christ maybe?
You seem to speak as if there is one central US Christian church...which leads me to believe you don't know of what you speak.
Can you tell me who this was exactly, so we might more ably debate it?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
>they were supposed to protect.
This is at least partially incorrect or misleading: The UN 'peacekeeping' 'mandate' did not authorize direct armed intervention, and I recall the UN commander who let the Serbian troops through describing his calls to superiors, and his agony, knowing what was about to happen.
In the end, I think he would have done well to drop the radio, "look at his troops, draw his weapon," and tell the Serbian commanders that they were going to have to take some causalities before they entered Srebrenica.
On the other hand (from the WikiPedia article you cite:)
Indeed, the attempt would have been suicide even with NATO bombing; the entire UNPROFOR force was insufficient, and insufficiently structured, to prevent the capture of Srebrenica.
Are the other Abrahamic religions a threat to peace and stability in the Netherlands, or Europe and liberal democracy at large?
Maybe he wants to expose something he sees as a threat, rather than attack "problems" in a religious faith.
You're assuming he's an anti-religious bigot, which he is not - if you knew anything about him, you would know that.
He's not trying to make the type of film you accuse him of.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
First of all, Christians almost unanimously condemn abortion clinic bombings, while Muslim advocating suicide bombings, and Muslims celebrating in the streets are relatively easy to find. Moreover, Christians carry out abortion clinic bombings in order to prevent the murder of unborn babies. Muslims carry out suicide bombings simply to prevent people from being free. Finally, abortion clinic bombings are rare. Muslim suicide bombings happen literally every day.
"if we go ahead and examine some history we can cover a huge host of horrific things done in the name of Christianity"
You can always find a lot of horrible thing done in the name of "the greater good". May I remind you that the Soviet Union strictly prohibited the practice of religion. Yet they killed more innocent people than the Nazis (though over a longer period of time). China also has a similar prohibition, and look at what they are doing in Tibet right now.
"none of the religions that sprang forth from that area are exactly civilized"
That means a lot coming from someone who was likely raised in a culture that advocates drug-use, promiscuity, homosexuality, money worship, easy answers, and infanticide (my assumption is based solely on the fact that you are posting on slashdot, and therefore have access to a computer). I guess it depends what you call civilized, but that seems like a backward way of living to me.
Dhimmitude isn't really much of a protection, is it?
Circumcision is child abuse.
This demonstrates the problem with allowing private organizations to serve as the gateway to the network. The nets, like the roads, should be a public resource; otherwise, they're going to be filtered by the views and fears of those entities providing access.
This is a perfect example: Network Solutions is in no way the author of, or the sponsor of, this content, but they will filter it because they don't want to be another target of violent factions of Islam or hordes of politically correct, censorship-minded people / investors. So the site is censored. Today it is someone speaking out against superstition and violent social coercion; tomorrow it may be a site against the drug war, or one against the war in Iraq. Or one that speaks out against your local school board. Or one that promotes Catholicism over Protestantism.
Personally, I think access-provider censorship is the kind of behavior the FCC really ought to be watching for, if they were really looking out for us. But of course, they aren't. They're watching out for corporate interests. And of course, Network Solutions is a corporation.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As many people have pointed out, violence is found everywhere. There have been religious people of all religions who have promoted violence. Atheists also have been violent. People have put the blame on religion, on politics, on nationalist pride, on you name it. People have promoted Utopian solutions. All have failed. The real problem is not with the government or with a group of people, or with a set of laws. Rather the real problem is that each and every one of us at our core are selfish self-absorbed self-centered bastards. We are the problem. We are at our core not good. The solution to the problem can not be found in us.
Don't know if your trolling or not. But theres a reason why the Christian Holy Bible has both books in there. They are both relavent. Less you want to argue that the Ten Commandments should never ever be cited by Christians when talking about Christianity. Or that Genesis doesn't pertain to Christians at all.
Who the fuck is Network Solutions to do this? Given all the other crazy sites they host?
expandfairuse.org
Heh. The thing is, most of us aren't really Christians any more either. Or at least not what it used to mean.
E.g., most people self-proclaimed as Christians think that the Christian thing to do is respect other people's religions, and believe that a nice guy is a nice guy, and will go to heaven anyway. Even the Catholic church nowadays came up with the "Anonymous Christian" doctrine to that effect.
That used to be a major heresy, namely that of Pelagius. Those are (according to at least one interpretation) the "snakes" that St Patrick drove out of Ireland.
So, yes, the Christian thing to do would be to say that if you're a Muslim, or Jew, or Buddhist, or were born on an island somewhere and never even heard of Christ, you're a monster in the eyes of the Lord and will fucking burn in Hell for eternity. Serves you right. Only by Christ can you be saved, and if you never even heard of him, well, tough beans for you.
But when someone goes and says that, pretty much 99% of the "Christians" are revolted.
E.g., most "Christians" nowadays believe that Jesus was the son of God, as in, really, a different person. That was the doctrine of Arius and the early church and Byzantine Empire fought hard to drive _those_ heretics off the continent.
Since I've already mentioned St Patrick, that's what the clover is supposed to symbolize: the three are _one_. It ended up a badge and the symbol of those believing just that, against those who insisted that the 3 are really separate entities.
E.g., tolerating other religions? Heh. That's why the early Christians were thrown to the lions, ya know? The Romans weren't opposed to your worshiping whoever the heck you want, and accommodated a large number of other religions. But they had laws against you telling other people that their gods are false. Well, ok, only the official Roman gods. You can worship this Jesus guy all you want, but don't go upsetting people by telling that Jupiter or Sol Maximus are false gods and they'll burn in hell for worshiping them. You know, because it's not nice, and it makes people upset.
Look at all those martyrs in your religious calendar, and the better half of them got killed for being insensitive arseholes towards other people's religions. We're honouring their memory for... being bigotted, intolerant, insensitive arseholes. Puts it into perspective, IMHO.
E.g., nowadays we think that the old Tridentine Mass was mean and insensitive, because used to call the Jews "faithless" and contain a prayer that they too are converted to Christianity. Excuse me? That's what the other half of the martyrs are honoured for. We _honour_ people for going to various kings and chieftains and telling them just that: your religion is false, your gods don't exist, and you'll freakin' burn in Hell unless you join _our_ religion. You're _supposed_ to think that you must convert everyone else. To save their souls, you see.
Etc.
What am I saying? I guess that most people proclaiming themselves Christians, aren't any more. You may identify yourself as Catholic, or Orthodox, or Protestant, but chances are you're not.
And probably if you wanted to really be one, you'd find that occasionally at odds with being nice and open minded.
And it gets funnier when the easy-going, open-minded, we-can-all-get-along "Christians" berate the others for not being Christian enough. No, chances are they _are_. _You_ aren't. If you were, you'd genuinely believe that God hates Muslims and Jews for being, well, non-Christians, and that he'll roast them alive for eternity for just that. Maybe he didn't explicitly say you should kill them, but, you know, it's only one step to inferring that. And maybe he won't be that happy if you go and help them print their islamic stuff or carry it on your servers.
We had _crusades_ based on that inference, and
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There are plenty of passages in the Bible that can be, if so desired, interpreted to mean that those acting contrary to the will of God can and should be killed. There is no greater or lesser ambiguity in any of the holy books, they all can be interpreted through the lens of love or the lens of hate if someone wants to do so.
And I'm pretty sure both Judaism and Christianity require submission to God. Unless you have a completely different copy of the scriptures than the rest of us have access to, all the Abrahamic religions mean submission.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You saw it on TV? Wow, it must be representative of the whole Middle East then.
Maybe Jesus and the money lenders? To be honest, it really is a stretch, but if Jesus can beat up some money changers and scatter their flock to keep the temple 'free', then I guess that means there are times when violence and being nasty is needed. *shrug* I've always had it explained that the New Testament is about Jesus spreading the love of god and fellow man, while the Old Testament is about God kicking ass. And that Deuteronomy is like the black sheep of the bible. If there's a general rule somewhere in the bible, Deuteronomy will tell you to break it when you are discovered raping an unmarried woman or something.
Network solutions are considering taking down this site, because they take Muslims seriously.
Why do they take Muslims seriously?
Because Muslims are standing up seriously for what they believe. They fight, they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.
That's the only thing that matters. Your values cost only as much as you are willing to pay to defend them.
Look at our history since Bush took power. He steadfastly stomped out the very rights you are so eager to cry for in every post on YRO.
What did you do? What did you do to deserve your rights? You ancestors who fought against British with arms in hands did deserve their economical freedom.
What did _you_ do to deserve your rights?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
If I wrote a book saying 'kill the Muslims' and outlined specifics on how to do it, that would be a hate crime. I'm clearly inciting violence.
If I draw a cartoon or write a book depicting Muhammad or Jesus or Moses or Buddha as a terrorist, I have not committed a hate crime. I personally wouldn't do something like that, because I don't believe it, but I will defend the right to be able to do it.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right. I will never condone removing that right for something as petty as avoiding insulting someone.
OK, you have every right to talk from experience. But when you say "most Muslims" it sounds as though you're referring to a majority of all Muslims, not just a majority of the ones you've encountered. I also wonder how objective your judgement of someone's "look of satisfaction" is. Have you personally discussed their reactions to American/Danish/Israeli deaths with these people?
I'm sorry you've had a bad experience of Muslim people. I've met quite a few Muslims whom I have liked and respected. I respect your right to speak as you find, but I hope that someday you will meet some people who will be able to give you a more positive view of Muslims.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Militant Buddhists have raised a little Hell in Sri Lanka, burning down Christian churches and whatnot, but we don't really hear much about it because it's not white Christians who are dying. Western media does tend to ignore conflicts where the victims aren't lily white. Heck, look at the war coverage in Iraq. Depending on whose numbers you go by, over a hundred Iraqi civilians have died for every American soldier, but who makes the news nine times out of ten? There are, sadly, many more examples in Africa, such as Rwanda. Genocides nearly on the level of the Holocaust go almost completely unreported. But, I digress. My point was that Buddhism can be twisted towards the ends of violence like any other religion, even if it's tenets are somewhat more pacifist. It's the followers that matter, not the religion.
Although Christianity has mellowed out somewhat, it is still used as a tool of intolerance and violence from time to time. The Bible really does contain some rather contemptible passages. The Koran and Torah are no different, since they all come from the same roots. It's strange that religions which share a common root harbor more hatred for each other than for completely alien religions.
Islam, as a religion, is fundamentally no more violent than any other religion out there. At present, however, some of it's followers are. Yes, I did just say that. Jesus can be portrayed as a exhibitionistic homosexual pedophile on prime-time TV (e.g. Family Guy and Stewie's encounter) without too much fuss but, if some Danish cartoonist draws Muhammad, the death threats start flying. This isn't because all Muslims are violent, but rather, because a rather significant subset of them are. In today's society, any organization, religious or otherwise, should be open to public criticism and even satire. Currently, Islam ranks up there with Scientology when it comes to a complete inability to laugh at themselves. That just isn't healthy and needs to change. Those few violent Muslims out there need to learn that they're actually doing Islam a disservice by standing up for it in such disgraceful ways.
As for the West's part, I really don't think we're doing Islam any favors by censoring anti-islam speech. If followers of Islam want to move beyond their current "suspected terrorist" status and find wide acceptance, Muslims *everywhere* have to learn to suck it up and take it when their religion is criticized or satired. If they can show they can shrug off an insult or take a joke then Muslim populations in Western countries might start to find acceptance easier to come by.
Res publica non dominetur
Network Solutions has no problem with Hizbollah
http://english.hizbollah.org/index.php
WHOIS:
https://my.mirahost.com/order/viewwhois.php?domain=hizbollah&ext=org
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
According to surveys, the majority of moderate muslims aren't against the violence against "infidels". They may not be actively involved in the violence, but they support it.
The number of attacks is split about even against muslims and non-muslims. More muslims are killed because each attack tends to have more casualties.
And who's fault is this? The middle east is buried in oil money. They could build universities that rival the best the West has to offer. Instead, they build reglious schools and mosques so they can teach that all their problems are because of evil Americans and Jews (I suppose American Jews are double plus evil).
How many Christian sects are urging their followers to blow up people? There have been a few, but they are incredibly rare. Contrast this with the religion of hate. It's one thing to preach non-believers are going to hell. It's another thing to urge your congregation to hurry the process along.
I discussed the muslims with a friend who spent a considerable amount of time in the middle east (numerous countries). It's his opinion that one of two things are going to happen. Either islam will become more tolerant or islam will cease to exist because the West will finally become fed up with the murder and hate and deal with it in a rather violent fashion on a grand scale.
The latter sickens me. However, if it came down to a choice between being subservient to islam or wiping them out, well, call me evil but let loose the dogs of war. The stated goal of islam as preached in their MODERATE mosques is the subjugation (with force) of the entire world to sharia law. I don't intend to go along with that plan.
When will the Council of Imams (the only real ruling body of that religion) denounce the violence against civilians? They won't denounce it because the terrorists are doing exactly what they want.
-- Will program for bandwidth
For a politician who lives by stirring the pot, Wilders will be most grateful to NS. Slashdot, CNN, BBC News, his movie is promoted and discussed across the globe. Win. I predict a big torrent hit.
What you're saying is if you insult enough people it's a hate crime.
It's not.
They may have been Christians, but they didn't murder thousands of people in the name of Christianity. They did it for the normal reasons Europeans commit genocide, racism. Christians may still be killing people as usual, but they aren't doing it in the name of Christianity. Which is the point being made.
OK, I have read the Bible, several times. And have it installed on my computers. And have read enough of the Koran to understand the problem. And what you say is misleading.
There is really no comparison between true Christianity and Islam. However, false christianity and Islam do have some similarities; Islam is still by far worse. It is the complete opposite of Freedom and Liberty. The U. S. Constitution itself is the opposite of the Koran, written much more succinctly. And one, unfortunately, diluted and chipped away at in a destructive way; especially since 1900 AD or so.
Actually, it is not censorship. First, the dictionary does say censorship is by a government, so it is correct to say this is not censorship since it is by a private company. Besides, the context of the conversation influences the meaning of a term. The conversation included reference to Pakistan (i.e. the government of Pakistan) censoring by blocking youtube. To use the term censorship to refer to both the Pakistan action (official government, therefore censorship) and action by a private company equates Network Solution's act with that of the Pakistani government, which is not correct given that Network Solutions and any other private company has a right to decide what content they serve. Thus, in this conversation, the term censorship should not be applied to Network Solutions' acts.
wow, how did you get up so highly? You should have been -1 Troll. Have you forgotten abortion clinic shootings and bombings too?
And as a Dutchman I'm ashamed about your lack of understanding of recent history.
When you plan to put someone against the wall you better have your information right.
This is not to say that the Dutch military couldn't have done a better job but at the time in this highly politicised campaign they basically had their hands tied behind their back.
Although we now demand wider mandates from the UN we still shy away from setting our own standards/ bottom line when joining new military and humane campaigns.
This is probably in the same vein as the lack of official and wide public support for Wilders freedom of speech.
OK he might be a fake blond weirdo but it's totally unacceptable the way some Muslims threaten everything Dutch or even Western when they only hear the rumours about his film.
Why can't he publish it via the site of the parliament?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
By not acting, the Dutch showed that they were as morally weak as the attackers. All these religious conflicts are never going to end unless a few show some unprecedented heroics. Just my 2 cents.
That's not what he said.
No they aren't. If someone kicked the shit out of you for being a muslim, that would be a hate crime.
Again, no, it is not a hate crime. Making unjustified negative statements about a group of people may be morally wrong, but it is not a hate crime.
I suggest you do a little research on the meaning of "freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech must include the right for someone to say something that you find reprehensible, or it means absolutely NOTHING.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Mark 11:15-17 they came to Jerusalem, and Jesus entered into the temple, and began to throw out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of those who sold the doves. He would not allow anyone to carry a container through the temple. He taught, saying to them, "Isn't it written, 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations?' But you have made it a den of robbers!" 1. Nobody was killed. I doubt anybody was even seriously injured.
2. It seems that what was being sold were articles to be used in the sacrifices and such. The situation described seems to be much like Scientology selling it's texts to it's members. The main difference being that in the biblical account buying and selling was probably from third parties (with assent of the religious leaders). I wonder how much they 'donated' to get a spot on temple grounds?
Or burns witches at the stake,
Or kills in name of god (well, I guess almost all do that, maybe except for Buddhism and look where the peace/love got them in popularity contest).
Don't pick on Muslims - not much different from Christians before reformation. Maybe Muslims are going through their own reformation atm, hint, hint.
Religions are screwed up, and as Mr. Ventura said (regarding organized religions) "for weak minded people". Why not believe anymore in Aphrodite or Zeus? You got killed in name of god back then too if you didn't believe in Zeus.
Geert Wilders is someone that got this far in politics by feeding on fear and hate.
The man is dangerous and should be ignored, not shut down.
Is anyone tries to shut him up, it will cause publicity.
And we know there's no such thing as bad publicity in politics.
I agree NetSol has very little business in taking down his site, but
I just wish the people would see the man for the windbag he really is.
(a few years ago, we had someone running for government with an agenda slightly like Wilders.
The man got shot (by an 'animal lover', the irony) and they continued the party in his name.
Strangely enough, that empty shell of a party even got into power.
Unfortunately, very few people in that party actually had any knowledge of politics.
Yes, chaos ensued...)
Now, quite some time later, the exact same thing is happening -again-...
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
Once (a couple of years ago) I heard from a Serbian on how things happened there. I don't remember the details, but it was something like this:
When the Ottomans came, they instituted a rule which opressed everyone who was not Muslim (well, the local population). Basically everyone else was a second-class person, lacking any rights what-so-ever. One could not work with commerce and other things, all you could do is to work in the fields and live as a peasant.
Eventually, the Bosniaks realised that instead of fighting against the invaders, it would be a good idea to turn themselves into Muslims. And so they did, they kicked out their previous beliefs and decided to become someone else. They upgraded their status by doing so, gained privileges accordingly and became part of the oppressing force.
Well, one day the Russians came and expelled the Ottomans.
The Bosniaks, being native people, stayed and became part of the Muslim island of Europe we know nowadays.
Accurate or not, it's an interesting history and makes one think about.
We sit around all rich and advanced and western, but beneath it all we just need someone to hate. Another tribe to vilify.
Islam, which does not tolerate a wide variety of other Free Speech.Shenanigans my good man. The canons of Islam are no more nor less ridiculous than those of any other major religion. Just as Richard Dawkins points out that "Christian morality" cannot possibly come from the bible, "Muslim intolerance" is also a myth.
Which is not to say that there isn't something barbaric going on in the Muslim world. Could it have something to do with the average income of Muslims being about 1/7 of incomes in the west? Could it have something to do with the west often financing those of their leaders that are fascist strongmen like Musharraf, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Suharto?
I've deployed to the richest Muslim societies on the planet, and seen the best they can do under the guidance of your oppressive, barbaric, pseudo-Nazi superstition.If you are referring to Saudi Arabia, let's talk about Aramco, through which American money has supported the rule of the House of Saud and the Wahibbist's grip on Saudi society for decades. Dontcha think that would piss some people off, particularly those who live under that regime without profiting?
No, Islam itself is not the problem. It's economics and politics that are the source of this era of Muslim weirdness. This is definitely not a case of we are better than them, it's a case of, boy we are lucky we weren't born in one of those countries.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Censorship is immoral. I have not viewed the film, nor do I plan to view the film; but I will make an effort to find and download this film. Censorship is IMMORAL!!!!!
I will do (nearly) anything to promote ANYTHING (in regards to visual, oral, or verbal representations) in regards to media that ANYBODY finds to be questionable, immoral, illegal, unethical, etc.)
Fight the good fight Slashdotters! Make an effort to download only things that are illegal!
Pardon me, they may not be suicide bombers, but who exactly is it that you think is behind the murdering and intimidation of, for example, doctors who perform abortions?
----------------- Oink. Moo. rarr! -----------------
I don't know what really did or didn't happen but your version just seems like a typical UN cluster-fuck where the good-guys in blue hats ride into town and sing Kumbya and everything is suddenly better without anybody firing a shot.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The old testament is there to show where we 'came from' basically, but, the teachings are not what we as christians follow. The Old testament tells the story of the Jews and how Christ came through them. But, the Jewish faith doesn't recognize Jesus...and still looks towards the old testament teachings.
But no....the Christian faith does not follow the teachings of the Old testament....only the new testament. Jesus teachings are the New testament, and followers of him follow the new testament.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I don't think you can say the same about the leading Christian leaders....
You should probably pay more attention to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. They were more than happy to lay the blame of September 11th at the feet of the gays, feminists, abortionists, etc. No, they don't explicitly call for violent action (the ones who do don't become very prominent, they tend to go to jail rather than build major colleges and political institutions), but they explicitly accept and celebrate it as a sign of God's justice on secular America.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
You know...for such a 'minority' of muslims....you sure can see a lot of them in the streets of the middle east, cheering suicide bombers, jumping and flaying about, with guns in hand in the streets on the tv.
Remember the huge crowd tearing down the statue of Saddam Hussein after the fall of Baghdad? About 50 people around the actual statue, a couple more spread around the huge square.Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
No examples of advocating violence come to mind from the New Testament. Care to share any?
So, a bit of context might be fun here. The writers of the Gospels had to be a bit careful about incitements to violence; they were writing for a largely Roman audience, on behalf of (at that time) essentially a Jewish sect, shortly after a violent, religiously motivated, Jewish uprising in Iudaea was brutally quashed by Rome.
So they are fairly easy going overall, though a few choice bits famously slip through, here and there, eg: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27). A lot is made about the proper understanding of the context surrounding that quote from Jesus (it's at the end of a parable, but the protagonist is meant to invoke Jesus), and how it's really not violent at all, but it seems unconvincing. Then again, I think of most pious exegesis as complete hogwash, so I am not the best judge.
As for the rest of the New Testament, no they don't directly call for violence much (except against the gays, you must, of course, murder all the gays), but they do seem to relish quite a bit the whole notion of the vengeful God wiping out the nonbelievers. As a random example, Acts 3:23 - "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." Etc, etc. Not a few people have taken such lines as a license to take matters into their own hands.
Also, lets not forget that the New Testament repeatedly states (I'm too lazy to look up references right now) that the divine law of the Hebrew Bible is still very much in effect, with all of its rules and punishments still intact. So, presumably, this also includes all the various incitements to cleanse the Earth of the various theologically differently-inclined peoples. Kind of at odds with some of the other stuff, but there you go.
Don't get me wrong, while I consider the scriptures of the two religions to be fairly similar in terms of their moral content (ie absolutely repugnant by today's standards), I do believe that one of the two has mellowed out quite a bit more than the other; though I think that has less to do with the source material and more with the proliferation of secular states in the West.
sic transit gloria mundi
As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant. You're talking about a minority of extremists.
When the extremists regularly kill people, they can get what they want. If moderate voices publicly disagree with them and stand up to them, the extremists can just kill the moderates, can't they?
So the extremists get their way until someone stops them -- presumably by killing them. If no one ever stops them, then ultimately, they simply win.
Killers might be a lot of things. One thing killers aren't is irrelevant.
I really doubt that you've seen lots of footage of us in the US in the news, taking to the streets in massive demonstrations waving our guns and rocket launchers in the air.....EVEN when we do get word that something 'bad' has happened to our 'enemies'.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Wait, it's not?
----------------- Oink. Moo. rarr! -----------------
One bombing is all you could come up with from 1998 huh? Lame. And I don't even count Rudolf whats his name, because although the press led sheep like you to believe he was a Christian, he was a neo-nazi, and I don't think Jesus Christ (who was a Jew) would consider nazis Christian. When the Muslims control the US and we have "rights" like those in Saudi Arabia, you will either be sad or happy. Which one is it?
It is an utterly disgusting piece of work and every Christian and non-Christian that didn't riot over it should be ashamed of themselves.
There's a difference between something being offensive or unpleasing to you, and something that everyone no matter their beliefs should riot over.
It's actually a lovely photograph (from a technical and aesthetic point of view), though I certainly understand why people would be offended by the subject matter and be royally upset at the notion of public funding for an award going to the creator of something so controversial.
I would humbly suggest that if you think the density of an emulsion on fiber is more worthy of rioting than, say, the sexual abuse of children in foster care, you might need to reread your Bible. Of course, there's no reason you can't riot over both, but who has the time?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
it has been a while since I've heard of any Christians have stoned an idoliter to death at the town gates, but I have heard of Muslims beheading infidels quite recently.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It is also a minority who go "apeshit" at other religions for no good reason. A minority of any group is going to be against the majority of another group. Take slashdot users for example, there are a few people on here who don't like people who are members of a religion. I'm sure that the majority of slashdot users are indifferent to religion and members of the various religions but a select few for some reason hate religion (someone who posted to this submission said he abhors all religions, why? Hard to say). I'm sure a select few Linux users hate Windows users. Hate is prevalent in this world and is not confined to having a basis in religion.
You responded to someone who said that evangelicals do not get up in arms over a newspaper depicting Jesus in a bad light which is the perfect target for those newspapers because they know Christians are taught to not fight back. Thus the newspapers act like bullies in elementary school probably because of nothing else to do (slow news day) and for popularity. Muslims get up in arms over something like that because they are taught differently, namely that violence is the solution to everything.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Yes, the mission was poorly planned and organized, and far outside the capabilities of the DUTCHBAT. But it's not as though they even "did what they could." Many soldiers surrendered their positions and (unfired) weapons to the Serbians when asked and walked back to their base unarmed. Those who didn't abandon their posts stood idly by to watch as civilians were raped, maimed, and murdered (OK, a few had the foresight to make photographs or video recordings, which helped get countries such as the US involved and eventually settle the conflict.) The commander of the Dutch mission had been videotaped enjoying coffee and chitchat with Serbian militia leaders the previous day. None of this gels with the Dutch self-image as a bastion of human rights and respect for international law, however, so no one in the Netherlands likes to talk about it and I'm not surprised that you're so poorly informed.
You are being shown a filtered version of reality that fits someone's agenda.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/3619543/_Wilders_slaat_aanbod_af__.html?p=14,1 in Dutch
http://canadianinfidel.blogspot.com/2008/03/wilders-declines-offer-from-muslim.html in English
So apperently the Muslims in the Netherlands are willing to show it if they can see it upfront to make sure it contains no legally libel content.
Nice to see that the Muslims are more willing and open then a US based company when it concerns free speech.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
> There are more than enough passages in the Koran to justify the
> killing of non-Mulsims
False
> 4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who
> disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols (unbelief).
> So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.
The words translated as "believe" (iman) and "disbelieve" (kufr) don't refer to the state of being a Muslim or not. They refer to
1. "putting belief into practice" (iman) through good and righteous works; and
2. "covering the truth and fighting it" (kufr), ie, persecution on account of believing and practising Islam. In the second case there is not a hint of fighting, let alone, killing, someone because of their belief.
Also, the word is "fight", not "do battle". Fighting is not necessarily something physical.
> 2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for
> Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against > wrong-doers.
Again, the context is defense from persecution. The word mis-translated above as "wrong-doers" (zaalimiin) actually means "oppressors". That is, oppression must be fought and defended against, not someone else's belief.
> The second one sounds good - except that the Koran defines a wrong-doer
> very broadly. It is a class that includes freethinkers, polytheists,
> atheists and non-Muslims that preach their own religion.
Who on earth told you this?!? Islam, as exemplified by the Prophet, is more interested in actions than belief. There are many cases of people in the early generations of Islam who were openly atheist etc and left alone to themselves. Again, the context is persecution and oppression.
> 4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye > may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till
> they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take > them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper > from among them.
Again, very bad translation. Better:
4:89 They long that ye should cover the facts even as they cover the facts, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not comforters from them till they migrate in the way of Allah; if they betray you for another allegiance then take them and kill them according to the manner in which ye find them; choose no comforter nor helper from among them.
This refers to hypocrites who claim outward allegiance to your community but who would betray you to your enemies given half a chance. The test for this particular hypocrisy is that they "migrate" with you and share in your hardships and difficulties -- assuming they are really sincere. But if they betray you then the penalty for treason is death.
Death penalty for treason is a well-established norm in law throughout the ages. Nobody likes a traitor.
Note also the "according to the manner in which ye find them" as opposed to "wherever ye find them". The second is a very bad translation. The point is that if you find them red-handed in the act of treason then their punishment will be death. Otherwise they may be forgiven or given another punishment. Again, there are many cases of this in the Prophet's life, where he forgave or commuted.
> 4:101 And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail
> (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In
> truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
Those who oppress you, steal your property, and otherwise persecute you on account of your belief and practice are certainly an enemy to you. Who could possibly disagree with that?
==========
When these verses are put into historical, logical, and linguistic context they make perfect sense and are quite reasonable, even by 21st century standards.
The equation of salvation as a function of faith in a dogmatic set of
Nothing in the story you linked said anything regarding the execution or death of cartoonists or anyone else for that matter. So given that, what exactly is your definition of "close"? Blaming someone for something and saying they should die (specifying punishment) are 2 different things and that article on the washington post site only mentioned Falwell and Robertson blaming various groups of people. Claiming American evangelicals only blow up abortion clinics is akin to saying men kill people by drunk driving when everyone knows full well that is an incorrect characterization. We may as well say that women blow up abortion clinics which would also be incorrect because not all women do. Why characterize those who blow up abortion clinics as american evangelicals? They may claim themselves to be (which is a basis for their action) but anyone who does that is not and as such you shouldn't portray them as an evangelical either. Whoever decides to bomb anyone else is an extremist who does not represent the whole. That is all.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
No, but even in moderate Islamic nations, they won't consider non-muslims as friends but instead people they should educate and convince to give up their religion...Ask most moderate or 'peaceful' Islamists how they feel about the Americans or Danes getting killed, and they'll typically have a look of satisfaction.
I don't think I've ever had a Muslim, in over a decade of international travel throughout majority Muslim nations, attempt to convert me or anyone I've ever worked with or spoken to, or proselytize their faith. Which is not to say they aren't thrilled to talk about it, given that it's such a major part of their daily lives in a way that Christianity is not for most westerners.
Of course I don't exactly hang out in the caves of Afghanistan, but I go to far more remote (and religiously strict) places than most people with my skin tone. I've been preached at plenty of times in America, though.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Damn, wrong book.
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
But thank god, it's only okay to murder infidels when god first tells you to do so.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Banjos and skeet guns, maybe. And chaw. Don't forget the chaw.
Maybe this comment is also hate crime? Who knows. What I *know* is that I can say that Jesus [...] smoking a joint and nobody will prevent me from saying it, [...]
Maybe I should have gone to church today [Easter]. That's one Jew I'd like to get to know better... With his long hair and cavalier way I'd bet he would have made one hell of a programmer today.
*Caveat: I am Christian and my best friends are pot smoking Jew's.
"No, Islam itself is not the problem."
Then by WHICH Muslim societies should I judge Islam?
"Could it have something to do with the west often financing those of their leaders that are fascist strongmen like Musharraf, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Suharto?"
MMkay, how about IRAN? They tossed the Shah, have had free reign to establish an Islamic society, and are ruled by Mullahs. No secular Saddams in sight.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
There is nothing in the Bible that gives them leeway to do what they did.
Whereupon do you draw your belief that this is true?
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
The penalty for murder in the bible is death.
Anyways, I don't consider abortion to be "murder". But if one did, and one were a fundamentalist christian with old testament leanings, then.
C//
No, Islam itself is not the problem.
Hmm, I think your argument misses the point a little.
You are saying that since Islam is no worse than any other monotheistic, dogmatic religion (true; though lets limit it to those, rather than "major religions" in general), and since we, as a people, are not somehow inherently better than Arabs or Persians (perfectly true), then any differences in our societies cannot be attributed to religion or culture? That's kind of a leap.
How about the fact that we live in a secular country, and many of them in theocratic ones? That while our predominant religion is as morally abhorrent as theirs, it has far, far less influence on our daily lives (especially those of us who don't subscribe to it)? For some reason it's extremely tempting for us, the oh so multicultural liberals, to just give religion a free pass on all this: "Why, it's all because of economics and standard of living, and theosophy is just the window dressing!"; but, when you have countries, founded and run on the precepts of a religion, that continuously flaunt the most abominable violations of human rights in the name of that religion, it becomes a little hard to say that with a straight face.
We sit around all rich and advanced and western, but beneath it all we just need someone to hate. Another tribe to vilify.
Because we think that a theocratic regime that, for starters, does not recognize a universal right to life is not a just society? I don't get how that reasoning goes.
Huh, I guess all that boils down to: "I'll see your Richard Dawkins, and raise you a Sam Harris."
Also, the West is to blame for the majority of social problems in the Middle East? Give me a break.
sic transit gloria mundi
Call me old fashioned, but in my view every Right brings with it a corresponding Duty. In this case, the flip side of the Right to Freedom of Expression is the Duty to be Civil in what you say and not go around pushing the limits of good taste [or even taste, period] as Messrs. Wilders and van Gogh are/were wont to do. So, IOW, say what you like but be polite about it.
Using an ellipsis instead of a period is a Hate Crime. Also, it's...
annoying.
"lightly armed and not authorized to open fire" -- You're missing some basic military tactics here - you open fire, and then call in air support after claiming the Serbs opened fire *first*. Job done.
IBM doesn't play chess with the Universe.
NS has reserved the right to control what people can use their servers for - because in this instance, they are operating in capacity as the web site host. The people making the video agreed to this limitation when they signed up. NS is just working within their own not-unreasonable interpretation of their ToS. If the ToS policy is too broad, then it's up to the site owners to receive clarification before signing up for the service. At this point, there is absolutely nothing stopping the owner from taking their business elsewhere (which is exactly what they /should/ do her).
NS is no longer providing the service that these people wish even though they acknowledged the possibility to start with; so they should be taking their business elsewhere -- free market at its finest.
Now, if NS was acting in their capacity as a registrar/root DNS provider, then it can rightly be called censorship. But this? Just a web host deciding it doesn't want to host a certain type of content.
There does need to be some moderation of the internet.
Kiddie porn - this is illegal for a reason, not just on the internet. It's a crime, because there is a victim.
Snuff - same as above.
Libel - in some communities, professions and industries, you can ruin a person in days if you come up with a convincing and clever lie. If you can't say it in real life without it being actionable, you shouldn't be able to say it on the internet either.
Anything that lacks a direct victim should be acceptable. This includes inciteful speech(not 'insightful', I mean truly speech to 'incite' action that may be illegal), pornography, political matters and anything that someone might find 'offensive'.
I want to protect the rights of my enemies to speak their mind, lest I become an enemy of my own state and have no right to speak.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
[i]It must have been terrible being one of these soldiers[/i] It sure must have. Especially the ones who assisted the Serbs in separating the men from the women. And the CO Karremans who exchanged gifts with the Serb CO Mladic, while a mile down the road the genocide was being perpetrated. It must have been terrible for them, terrible. [i]the whole Dutch government resigned[/i] Yeah, about two weeks prior to a scheduled change-of-government. Talk about an empty gesture. I am dutch too and I am deeply ashamed of the cowardly way our military behaved over there. I cannot blame the soldiers, but at least the officers should have shown more of a backbone, or if they thought they were given an impossible order to defend the area they should have resigned before the shit hit the fan.
Heh. Apparently the person who modded me flamebait felt it should not be free speech - probably because of the emotionally weighted words and phrases I deliberately chose. (Mid-career Heinlein should be required reading before being allowed to mod... )
Christians? The perpetrators grew up in the good old Communist Yugoslavia, where the state religion was Atheism and no career growth was ever possible without it. Who are you calling Christian, a Communist party functioner and then Serbian president Milocevic? Or an army general Mladic thought to order the massacre, who reported to the Communist party during all his career? Or the Scorpions security forces officers, no less loyal to the Communist party?
Killed because they were Muslim? Sorry, no: the Yugoslavian war was territorial, not religious. Even the article that you cite admits that: "a fierce struggle for territorial control... ensued among the three major groups in Bosnia: Bosniak, Serb, and Croat.". And let's not forget that the Serbs were war victims just as much as the Bosnians; both suffered because they lived in a particular area, not because they were going to a particular church.
The last but not the least, using a tragedy as a pretext for flawed thesises like "Christians bad, Muslims good" (replace the confession names any way you wish) is, IMHO, not exactly ethical. More on attempts to capitalize on the Srebrenica events can be found, e.g., in a recent review Using War as an Excuse for More War.
Interestingly, AFAIK that abortion clinic bombing is the only one I've been able to find which caused a fatality in the U.S. The perpetrator was Eric Rudolph, aka the Atlanta Olympics bomber, so I think it's safe to say he's unrepresentative of any group except murderers who kill randomly. It would seem that if there's an organized group conducting abortion clinic bombings, they're going out of their way to avoid human casualties.
Whoever decides to bomb anyone else is an extremist who does not represent the whole.
Now's you chance to apply that very same thought to Muslims or practitioners of Islam, as you see fit.
What?
Geert Wilders has visited Israel. He even worked in a moshav. He has met Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, among others, in Israel, both of whom had a positive view of him. Wilders even planned to move to Israel once. He seems to be quite sincerely pro-Israel. So it's not as simple a you say.
This is why port blocks and other terms of service are evil. If you can't serve something on your own machine with bandwith you buy, you are at the mercy of others. When they want to censor you, they will. The reason for that censorship does not matter. If it can happen it will be abused.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=216934&cid=17629948
Why should the speech be restricted if it is offensive to a billion people? Simply being offensive isn't a good enough reason. There are things you could say to me that I'd find offensive, but I'd never advocate making your speech illegal.
First of all I'm an atheist who is puzzled that religion in all it's mystic forms continues to have so much influence in our nominally enlightened times. Don't take me as an apologist for Islam.
...since we, as a people, are not somehow inherently better than Arabs or Persians (perfectly true), then any differences in our societies cannot be attributed to religion or culture?How do you separate the different factors: economic, political, historical, religious, demographic, and "cultural" (whatever that is) and say that just one, the religion, is the problem? I can't. I didn't say religion and culture have no influence, but you seem to be saying they should be the prime suspects until proven otherwise. That makes no sense to me.
Particularly because religious doctrine is so open to abuse by megalomaniacs with the gift of the gab, and doubly so in Islam where there is no central authority, so local Imams can make all sorts of crazy pronouncements based on that they are wannabe tinpot dictators of the local village.
Because we think that a theocratic regime that, for starters, does not recognize a universal right to life is not a just society? I don't get how that reasoning goes.Well I'm sorry, but it just doesn't look to me like the problem in the Islamic world is Islam, it's poverty and rotten political systems. Which is the fault of history, greed, and power, not the type of magic the poor slobs believe in. But the type of exchanges in this story show, people just want a relgion to hate. Still after all these years and in this gathering place of supposedly educated people, so many just want to hate a religion. *Sigh*
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
FYI, a major problem with Islam is that, in order to deal with discrepancies in the Koran, Muslim "scholars" have decided to asses the accuracy of their scriptures based on the order in which they appear, with the more recent portions superseding the older ones. In other words, if earlier in the history of the Koran it said to live in peace with all "people of the scripture", but then later on it says to "kill all infidels or make them submit", then the later phrase wins out. Unfortunately for everyone involved, it's the earlier portions of the Koran which are the peaceful ones, while the latter portions deal with Mohammed's Jihad against everyone and everything.
Fascinating, just where did you read that from? I thought he koran is supposed to only be in one language so that it does not get mis-interpreted and has not been modified (as opposed to the bible) what is your source please?
I also thought jihad meant struggle and the only true jihad is the inner struggle. Just where in the koran does it say to kill infidels? I thought it said to kill the infidels if they attack you (in self fdefence)
And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in itbut if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
Power hungry zealots twist things around to suit their own ends and are helped by peoples fears of things that are different (as you are of muslims) making it easier to portray the people as inhuman, which religion it is is immaterial.
Thank you for the compliment of being a scholar but I would never atttempt to end a debate, it is important to hear other peoples points of view and to argue my view-point. The idea is to actually find out what is dis-information and what is correct, I am always forth-coming where my information comes from, lest it be wrong. You made statements but have not shown where you "got" the facts from.
I also got that you said you weren't religious, it obviously went over your head that hatred is a religion and you appear to be a regular at that congregation.
Nazis, Marxists, Capitalists, Catholics, Muslims are all labels as far as I'm concerned, I will continue to treat people as people. I hope you can come up with evidence that shows what you are saying but so far the only things I can find that backs up what you're saying appears to only quote small phrases that can easily be twisted (I have looked, it appears YOU might be the one that only sees what they want to see).
Oh yes, I do judge, I judge the actions and words of the individuals.
BM3
Network Solutions is giving in to terrorists in censoring this.
But I'm sure it will be available everywhere real soon, probably on everything from BitTorrent to the Internet Archive.
Back in the 1970s, there were Islamic threats of bombings over "Mohammed, Messenger of God", and it was pulled from theaters. Yet today, nobody cares. That film is a straight biography of Mohammed; some of the less crazy Islamic countries use it as an educational film. You can buy it on DVD for $29.95 if you like. I've seen it; the battle scenes are impressive and the Arabian horses are very good ones, but the acting is disappointing.
On a threat scale of 10, with WWI and WWII as a 10, and the USSR as an 8, Islamic terrorism scores around 0.5. They'll probably make trouble again, and we'll deal with it when it happens. Meanwhile, ignore their threats.
If I never been to the US and relied on TV to give me an accurate picture of the place, I'd probably picture it as a place full of arrogant and deranged pistol-packing criminals who want to conquer the world.
When has any international news outlet featured footage of US civilians with firearms? Perhaps the border militia, and that's about the only thing I can think of that would make it on the news. Oh, and to my knowledge, none of them carry a visible pistol. But in the US, I've seen many newsclips of civilians with firearms where the caption or story was discussing Islamic terrorism, the PLO, or some other activity linked to Islam. So if you have something you can point to which displays US civilians with pistols, I'd be interested in hearing what TV story it was. I'm thinking it doesn't exist, and you were making up things to make a point, but if you had to make up such things, that proves the opposite, that TV clips wouldn't contain pistol-packing Americans, or you'd have been able to point to some specific such incident.
Learn to love Alaska
Maybe now, christians don't behave that way, but Islam's relatively young. Christianity has a 600-odd year head-start on maturity. Now, think about how christians behaved 600 years ago, and how many of the world's peoples are still recovering. I guess this is just how 1400-year-old religions behave.
Just wait until Islam's balls drop and it gets laid. Maybe by the time it gets to college it'll be calmer and more thoughtful. Until then, why don't we stop looking down our noses and accept that our own religious heritage is full to the brim with ignorance and atrocities barely matched in human history.
As a dutch colored guy, I would be assumed to not be a fan of Wilders (the guy that made said movie that no one has seen yet)... and that's true, in fact, if I didn't have half a brain, I'd probably go out and punch that guy as hard as I can in the face because he's advocating seperation and instead of working together, advocates hate and stigmatizing all people that aren't white as criminals.
But I don't... I severely despise everything he stands for, yet I will fight for his right to say so. Even if the movie is offensive and inflamatory (and no one has seen it yet), I think if we ban this or any other speech, it's not just bad for "free speech" but mostly, a threat to an open society. I think his kind would never have gained the support if we would all allow him to say whatever stupid things he wants. When it's not allowed to talk about it, all good reasons against it aren't heard either. I say, let's view his inflamotory, hatefull movie and laugh about / discuss it.
That said... I really fear what will happen to him, cos we can't really expect a guy that's so full of **** and so much in the public spotlight to *not* get some crazy muslim to kill him... I mean, I hope it doesn't happen and just degrades to another "Jan Maat", but if he does get killed (and he's really working hard to make that a reality) his views will only be adopted even more... and he will have gained more support in death than he ever could in life...
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
...if the torrent was posted on it. Would the fanatics listen to the argument that it is only holding the torrent and has nothing to do with the film?
You don't see Christians or Jews go apeshit every other minute here in Europe. Muslims, all the frakking time.
Islamophobia is no different than anti-Semitism and if anti-Semitism is hate crime, so is Islamophobia.
Great. Anti-Semitism is not a crime. I can hate all the Jews I want because they are Jewish and I've committed no crime. So you are asserting that Islamophobia is also not a crime. I agree. There is no crime in hating you for your religion. There is no crime in insulting you because of your religion. There is no crime in making fun of your religion and your religious figures. There is no crime in any of that, so you agree that it shouldn't be prevent for anyone to do that to any religion, including yours. That's the core of the Freedom of Speech, to say that which everyone hates and thinks is wrong.
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
That makes you a terrorist. You want to make a crime my ability to speak my mind. I hate you. Not because you are Muslim. Not because you are a radical (and you are, despite your claims, or you wouldn't want to make it illegal for people to speak their minds about any subject). I hate you because you are claiming to be renouncing violence, yet stating that you want the State to enforce, through violence (the only way to enforce a law, including those against "hate crimes") when you are unable or unwilling to use violence yourself. Not only are you a spineless coward, but you are a hypocritical spineless coward. Oh, and please note, I didn't insult your religion. Whatever religion you had or didn't have is irrelevant to your condemnation of violence, followed by your support thereof. It is the ignorant hypocricy that I hate, and anyone that displays it with such vigor in a public forum is worthy of my disdain.
Learn to love Alaska
Really... it takes some seriously pathological disingenousness to compare that single incident to the hundreds of incidences of Islam-approved-and-sponsored suicide bombings.
To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. What does being modified have to do with it? Even without being modified, the Koran is (like the bible) self-contradictory. Read it some time.
"Jihad" is a word which, like many words, can have multiple meanings. I could explain this to you in my own words, but Mr. Sookhdeo did an excellent job of addressing this fallacy, so I'll let him speak:
Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed's own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da'wa (mission).
Muslims base all of their morality on the behaviour and commandments of Mohammed. His words and actions play a much bigger part in their belief system than any other words in the Koran. So, considering his conduct, is it any wonder that the majority of Muslims interpret the primary meaning of "Jihad" to be violent warfare?
O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard
More important than the words, though, is the accepted interpretation in the Islamic world. It is a well established fact that Muslim nations punish Apostasy with death. It is also evident, from numerous examples in the real world, that wherever Muslim's are in the majority, they force Islamic religious rules on everyone, regardless of religion (or lack thereof). Finally, it's been established through numerous polls that even the majority of Muslims in western nations feel that Islamic law takes precedence over the laws of their host nations. That's a hell of a frightening pattern.
If you run into a Lion in the middle of the plains, you have two options: be afraid and try to protect yourself, or be friendly and try to shake his hand. Regaurdless of whether the lion is hungry right now, only one of those responses is logical.
Ah, I see the problem here: you're quite literally retarded. I'm sorry. I hope you lead a full and happy life, despite your handicap.
Now, I know two wrongs don't make anything right but that lot from Srebrenica raided surrounding Serb territory and slaughtered a couple of thousand of Serbs. I haven't seen anyone cry genocide or ethnic cleansing over that. The Muslim commander of Srebrenica, Naser Oric, was convicted of war crimes during those raids. The UN safe haven was set up promptly when Oric and his lot started losing to the Serbs. So not exactly Bhuddists, Naser Oric of Srebrenica.
You do realize that the US and British governments, through the CIA and Secret Intelligence Service, overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh and the most democratic and secular government Iran ever had, to protect British oil interests in 1953. And put the Shah, a brutal and hated dictator in power in his place. Iran was so destabilized by this that the Ayatollahs were able to take the place over. Read "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" by Stephen Kinzer for a good history lesson on this subject. Free reign to establish a fair government my ass. When Iran was getting close to having a stable secular government, it was wiped out by the US. And we wonder why they hate us in the Middle East.
If he wants to present volatile material (truth or not) from one religion, he should do the same for all of them. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a hate film.
There's no such thing as an objective work solely against just one idea, nor is there any such thing as an objective work solely in favor of just one idea.
Now, if the film presents objective, irrefutable proof backing up its disdain towards Islam, then sure, it's fine. However, judging from who the person is and what he's been doing so far, I seriously doubt that this is the case. I'm bookmarking my reply for when the film is released and I'll get back to you once I watch it.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Eh, that was most certainly a mistranslation. The proper text means something along the lines of malconvokers. Yes, it's in the female form but it's also plural, which tends to include both sexes. So, basically, thou shalt not suffer a practicer of evil magics to live. Of course, by presupposing the presence of evil magics(which is not the same thing as assuming all magic is automatically evil), one also presupposes the presence of good magic.
Meaning that if someone questioned the historical events of the Nazi Holocaust, they would be free to speak right? Ummm...I guess not! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial It is illegal in Europe to question the Holocaust.
Don't mistake what is political for the religious. Guns are prohibited in the totality of majority-Muslim countries. And if the Palestinians or the iraqis happen to have them, it is because of the lawlessness that reigns in those places.
Res publica non dominetur
Thank you for the link, he appears an interesting man.
Modified means it could have been altered to fit current doctrine and manipulated to suit what the current leadership wants (note that they appear capable of doing that regardless which is why I'm not a big fan of censorship - something for you to bite on) .
Again, you appear to use sentences out of context with the entire passages, most of those phrases are about defending themselves from oppression and against invasion.
It is also important to note what jihad means in order to understand how a minority twist it to their own ends as opposed to what was meant (usually at the threat of death if they do not do what is required) Iran is a good example of this (IMO). It is also interesting what is transpiring in Iraq where what was once a relatively secular country is being driven to fundamentalism.
No it is not a fact that muslim nations punish apostasy with death, some might (as some christian nations did unspeakable things to non-believers) but again, this is more to do with maintaining their power over the people, if we do not point the finger accurately at the persons offending (Saudi royals come to mind - great friends of the West I hear and Iran, Egypt, PAKISTAN!!! ) and be consistent, we alienate the people and force them into a position of having to do the bidding of the likes of the Iranian Supreme council or die, far better to encourage and to communicate. The people were finally getting a voice when some idiot suddenly called all of them terrorists and the axis of evil. All of a sudden, anyone that spoke out within was called a traitor (no I am not saying it was all fixed and going well but there were genuine improvements being made, now the conservatives have total control (again nothing to do with religion, just as the inquisitions had nothing to do with religion).
Don't know about you but if I ran into a lion in the plains, I would more than likely not attempt to run (they are faster than me) I would not try to shake it's hand as it does not have a hand. If it were possible for me to talk to it I would but I do not know how to speak lion so I would move steadily and purposefully to my destination (I hope it was a resort you had me going to) but as far as I can see, there are more than 2 options (didn't resort to nuking the animal either). It might attack (unlikely from what I read about lions, THEY attack as a group, interesting that it is primarily the females that hunt), I might have a weapon to defend myself (being retarded, I'm sure I'd have shot it and any other animal within site because lions eat people and lions are animals so all animals are dangerous - psalm 45:13 from the fear and hatred).
Thank you again for wishing me a happy life, it is quite good, lots of entertainment is being provided by you at the moment.
I shall read Patrick Sookhdeo, he does sound interesting and look forward to his views, at first glance he has some good insights but again from what I can see, it appears he is also saying what I have been saying, the religion is being manipulated for the advantage of a few. I also note that he was for censorship (banning a translation of the koran):
There is one particular version of the Qur'an in English which Dr Sookhdeo believes should be banned in the UK because it clearly advocates violence. This version is called "Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur'an in the English Language" by Dr Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan ( Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, 1996).(email from Barnabas Fund).
that was in the other great font of knowledge to us "scholars" - Wikipedia.
That action does lend support to the theory that people like to "re-interpret" to suit their own ends (I am referring to the likes of Bin Laden there, not Sookhdeo -he is also doing a lot of cherry-picking from what I can see).
keep the insults coming, never know your luck , you might make me smile.
Oh yes, I do agree with you on the contradictions in all religions though.
BM3
russia tinkers in british affairs. china tinkers in american affairs. cuba tinkers in angolan affairs
etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum
most every country that exists and has ever existed and will ever exist has tinkered in the affairs of other countries
and you want to do two things:
1. conveniently forget all tinkering by any country except american tinkering
2. leverage that american tinkering into direct accountability by the usa for whatever bullshit someone else does
example: britian, france, russia, china, and the usa all had arms deals with iraq. but we'll forget all of that and just think about the usa. next, saddam hussein gassed kurds. so obviously, the usa is responsible for that
this is your superior understanding of the world?
your example of this kind of bullshit is saying this:
1. an american gas company had dealings with the house of saud. you are conveniently forgetting the involvement of companies and businesses from almost every nation on earth in saudi arabia
2. the house of saud does bad things. therefore, the usa is directly responsible for whatever it is that is done
i find this bias of yours
1. sheltered. you are only aware of western and american activites in the world, none else
2. condescending and patronizing. only westerners and americans can ever be responsible for their actions. other people can't?
people like you just blow my mind. you have this incredible bias, and you will stretch accountability and responsiblity into the most incredibly creative lines of reasoning, and not once think "hmmm, maybe other governments and peoples in this world are capable of doing bad things?"
how do people like you function?
i for one, think maybe i can't beat you, i should join you
but my bias is anti-philippines:
1. the philippines has 800,000 guest workers in saudi arabia. we all know that the filipino is a wily manipulator, so this means the philippines is responsible for what happens in saudi arabia now
2. saudi arabia is the source of a most of the hijackers on 9/11. it is impossible that most of those saudi hijakers didn't meet and conspire with of one of those 800,000 filipinos at some point
therefore, the philippine government is 100% repsonsible for 9/11
sounds pretty stupid and funny, right?
now you know you sound
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Nuts to them. If you can only insult 1/6 of the world population at once you're not even trying.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I like the Dutch people. They go out of their way to make people feel welcome. But this is a case of the guests holding the hosts hostage. So here come these Muslim nutzies holding a nation in fear. You will believe in our god or we'll cut your head off? Nonsense. How do you tell someone that their faith is misplaced. How do you deprogram somebody of their religious fervor or zeal. How do you tell someone they're wrong. That their fanaticism is a disease of which they must be cured. You don't do this by being timid. You do it by being rational. You do it by challenging the belief of the group of individual that challenges your rationality. To do anything less is surrender to the madness which has claimed so many lives.
That was not my interpretation of the cartoon at all. Perhaps it was the author's interpretation and intention. I don't know. But perhaps not and I am personally inclined to think not. Any writing or work of art is necessarily interpreted by the reader or viewer often times in ways the author did not even consider.
My thought upon seeing the cartoon was not that it was intended to depict Muhammad as a suicide bomber but to show that many Muslims must think of him as one since they justify their suicide bombings in His name. In other words, the cartoon is not intended to show the author's thoughts about Muhammed but to show what the author thinks radical Muslims must be thinking about Muhammed.
Consider an equivalent work of art for Christianity: The Piss Christ. At first glance it is disgusting that my religion's most important prophet, the one we consider to be no ordinary prophet but actually god in the flesh, is depicted defiled in a jar of urine. But the artist succeeded in making a very profound statement with the work, namely that the actions of some christians are tantamount to pissing on the image of Christ. Was this the artist's intention? I don't know. To me it seems the guy just likes vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity and he may not have had any deeper meaning for it other than wanting to take a picture of a jar of urine and call it art. That said, I am not alone in interpreting the work as a statement not against Christ but instead against those who would use his name to justify their bad actions.
There was, inevitably, a huge media uproar regarding this work of art. But no bombs went off. No cars or houses were burned. No one fired off rockets. No one threatened the artist's life and if someone had he would have been arrested. In fact, the biggest uproar and the real meat of the story was not so much that the artist created it. After all, we live in a free society and this artist's speech is protected by the first amendment. No, the meat of the story was that this artist was actually paid by the U.S. government to create it! Some argue that because of "separation of church and state" the government has violated that very same amendment by producing (or rather paying to produce) this work.
I would not be one of them though. Our constitution, in the first amendment, does not say "separation of church and state" as many like to claim it does. What it does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and continues "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." To me the text is quite clear and quite specific. It's actually the latter half of the first part that applies in this case: "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The artist can very easily claim that he is exercising his religion by creating this work and thus congress can do nothing to prohibit it.
In the end nothing was done and some number of people have used it as a starting point for philosophical thought. Those who view the Piss Christ purely as an example of anti-Christian hate do so to their own detriment. Likewise those who view the Muhammad cartoon as an example of anti-Muslim hate do so to their own detriment. Think about it.
God be with you.
More about the anti-media campaign is linked here, including videos:
http://www.mediamatic.net/article-34157-en.html
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
I've read a lot of the comments here, and it's great, lots of well balanced argument and things out of context being put back in context. Sadly however, I don't believe any amount of discussion my us (non-Muslims) will help in the slightest. The onus is on the "high priests" of the Islamic faith to be outraged at the actions of their brothers taking up arms against civilians or otherwise declaring war for no good reason.
Those who preach violence must simply be excommunicated from the faith. The reason why mainstream Islam is being poked and ridiculed is because of our collective anger and frustration at not hearing enough condemnation from Muslims and Islam in general against that kind of violent, evil behaviour.
*I* don't believe in good and evil, but they do, so those acts of terrorism and barbarity should be declared EVIL and the WORK OF SATAN by those who preach mainstream Islam. That's the only thing that will make us feel safer and more at peach with Muslims in our midst, and deter young people from joining the club. But I just don't hear it! It leaves people wondering, "do they care? do they agree?"
Muslims themselves complain about discrimination and getting queer looks - well, what do they expect, given such a resounding silence? If some branch of Christianity was going off on another Crusade, and the Bishops and clergy weren't riled up and ranting about what a corruption of the Bible it was and being as vocal as possible about it, they shouldn't be surprised if non-Christians think they're a bunch of ignorant savages.
The PR department of Islam just isn't stepping up to help. On one hand Islam is being belligerent and nasty, and on the other they're not saying much about it. Things won't get better until that changes. It's THEIR faith, they need to throw out those who subvert and corrupt it, and do something to fix the damage in people's minds.
I think anybody should be free to practice whatever religion they like, as long as they don't harm anybody else or infringe on anybody else's right. But we cannot let Muslim fundamentalists attempt to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. To me, there is nothing holy about Mohammed or the Koran, and I have the right to pick it apart and criticize it any way I want to, even if it is offensive to Muslim.
What's ironic about the Muslim position is that Muslims say incredibly offensive and blasphemous things day after day. For example, Muslims deny that Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of humanity; it is difficult to imagine something more blasphemous and offensive to say to a Christian. Let's not even talk about all the flag and effigy burning, and all the vitriol, these people are heaping on the West.
Muslims have gotten used to living in countries where their own religion dominates all public life and all speech. We cannot allow their censorship and attitudes to spread to the rest of the world. The ability to criticize and offend other religions is an integral part of free speech and religious freedom.
Not that i agree with their actions, and I absolutely abhor the idea of censorship through the DNS system, but I've got some food for thought:
Would this have been tagged cowardice if they had taken down an anti christian site under threats by the KKK? Or a anti-jewish site under legal threat from the jewish ADL? I tend to doubt it.
Not trying to make any particular political statement, or say that those situations are entirely comparable, but I think that the cowardice tag nicely portrays this aspect of the the adversarial relationship between the western (primarily US) and Islamic worlds at this point in time... Cowardice not only would indicate that they were doing the wrong thing, but also essentially challenging the "manliness" of the company making the decision.
Just a thought.
Those are Old Testament quotes; they're mostly all superceded by the New one.
... challenges, to put it nicely ... taking the violence out of Islam's texts than out of the mainstream Christian canon, especially when it's the Old Testament that's being quoted.
Now I'm not one, generally, to defend any religion over any other. I think they're all fairly stupid, because I think the whole concept of faith -- intentional, willing arationality -- is tantamount to poking your own eyes out with a stick. But it's really not hard to see that there are many greater
At least with the OT/NT, you have the advantage of the warm fuzzy, love-your-neighbor, Jesusy parts coming after, and thus superceding, all the crazy old-school OT stuff. There are still some NT parts you need to perform mental gymnastics to defang, but at least Deuteronomy is covered.
The Koran is a lot more difficult. Rather than have the nice parts come at the end, a lot of them are at the beginning, apparently superceded by parts that seem (on a superficial level, anyway) to encourage violence. Most people can see the issue here: it's relatively easy to read the Koran and come up with a pretty nasty set of rules; it's harder and requires more study and interpretation to come up with one that's moderate. So if you're looking to either denigrate Islam, or recruit a bunch of terrorists, it's not difficult to find violent passages, and the counterarguments against them are complex and nuanced. (It's not as easy as just claiming the supercession of basically everything in the Old Testament with the New, as a Christian can when confronted with a ridiculous instruction like the "kill your brother" one from Deuteronomy 13:7-12.)
It seems to me that there are actually a lot of parallels between the Muslim and Jewish systems, in terms of both lacking central authorities to answer matters of dogma, and instead relying on individual scholars. The fact that very violent modern interpretations of Jewish scripture are relatively rare, despite the text itself having some rather questionable commands in it (like Deuteronomy), is evidence enough to me that you can successfully maintain a relevant modern religion with a really ancient and scary holy text, if you try hard enough. The problem is just getting people to try.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The ex-Yugoslavian conflicts, like "The Trouble" in Northern Ireland, and the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, are all more tribal than religious in nature, despite that the grouping has religious names.
In Yugoslavia it would be more correct to characterize the people who committed most of the atrocities as Serbian nationalists than as Orthodox Christian fundamentalists.
.. is an Arabic word and since the Quran is in Arabic, hence the use of word in it. But it cannot be said that Fitna is a Quranic word. Secondly, why is it that slashdot is discussing something religious? I thought it was a tech related site ...
As more and more information is popping up. It is even worse.
A dutch critical research news program (Noorderlicht from the VPRO)
is still trying to get all secrets uncovered
What has popped up till now is that 3 major powers from NATO blocked all actions.
(read US, France and england)
This is information the minister of defense has released in the program.
This is information the dutch secret service has uncovered afterwards
The major forces in NATO actually wanted the serbs to take the enclaves, this as they were impossible to maintain.
They hoped that after people would have been relocated all would calm down.
They would take a certain number of deaths as acceptable.
How wrong they were.
When the slaughter started it was too late to stop it.
This is also the reason why Mladic is still not arrested.
They have had many opportunities, especially the French.
But there actions have or being blocked or Mladic was informed ahead.
There are radio recordings of it.
The problem is, Mladic knows too much
information that is not allowed to be going public.
My opinion, They (US/Englnad) made a deal with Mladic.
He took the enclaves, but he did not have his military/militia under control.
But I can be wrong.
I wonder if it was planned by Mladic.
It is just a very sad episode of history.
And maybe one day the truth will come out.
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
You're wrong. Discriminating jews because of their race may be anti-semitism. Insulting the stupid, backward, superstitious jewish religion is not. See, I just did it, no problem at all.
X.
Reasonable? Apparently you already have made up your mind that it will be an '[...] inflamatory, hatefull [sic] movie', whereas you even state no one has seen it yet. So it is a bit hypocritical to say such a thing. And the fact that you are afraid that 'some crazy muslim [will] kill him' already points out a problem with said group when it comes to accepting critique.
I am Dutch too and despite not agreeing with everything this guy says, I have also been delving into religion and mythology long enough and experience enough in the Middle East personally to know he makes very valid points.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
Not that this makes me a worldly expert or anything, but each Iraqi home is allowed up to 1 rifle (generally an AK series) and up to 200 rounds of ammunition WITHOUT a permit from the local CPA/Gov Center. Just about every Iraqi home I visited there had one. They man of the house was happy to show it to us, and I usually had to lecture him (away from his family, and with the aid of a translator) on the importance of weapons maintenance.
Out on the road, with a permit, people could have weapons for self defense...and shepherds we would talk to often had them without a permit. We usually let them keep them...again with a warning on the importance of keeping rifles clean. Iraq is a great example of why you DONT want gun control. You never know when you need to protect yourself. There is no 911 for the average Iraqi to call. It is up to the head of household to protect his family. If the local Sheik is so inclined, he may create local security organizations (militias) to collectively safegard life and property. The only people who realllly want to take guns from people are politicians who want to take control from people. Creating a dependent populace who NEEDS the government more than the government NEEDS them. This is not the basis for a truly free society.
THL phish sticks
I spent my web hosting budget contracting for hosting services at Network Solutions. I do not set their policy, and while I do vote with my wallet most of the time, the next time I vote on them is several years out. I think it is rash and unfair to bash their clients for the provider's actions. I object strongly. They are a corporation and are subject to civil and criminal laws, as well as economic pressures in the marketplace. If you don;'t like them, don't use them, but get off my back.
Have you actually walked those streets? I guess what you will mostly see is people going to school, running a business, doing their thing. How many angry Muslims fit on you TV screen? And who put them there? Who chose to film the angry Muslims, and not the guy running a shop around the corner from there? (who had to close down for the day, because of the protest, therefore loosing business) Go to Bali, angry Muslims blew up a few hundred Australians. Ask people what they think about extreme Muslims, now the Australians go there in such fewer numbers. There are 300 million Muslims in Indonesia alone. It took maybe 10 to do the bombing (and they are in jail by now).
With 1 in 16 people being Muslim in the Netherlands, if all Muslims are really that dangerous, I expexted the Netherlands to be a Muslim country a long time ago. Fact is it isn't.
People like Wilders fail to see that.
I won't deny there are dangerous Muslims with dangerous ideas. But there are Christians aswell that rather have their children die than allow them a blood transfusion, wich is, in my opinion, also a danrerous outing your religion.
I came across traffic death statistics last week. In the EU last yeas 40000+ people were killed in traffic accidents. I bet it's about the same in the US. Now let's take the US and the EU together for a period of 5 years. That makes.. 2 * 40000 * 5 = 400000 lethal traffic incidents.
Compare that to 4000 (rounded up BIGtime) deaths by terrorism and you do the math.
I agree terrotism is a LOT scarier than traffic, but fact is you're way more likely to be killed in traffic than by terrorism.
So coming back to that movie. I think politicians and especially Wilders take things way out of proportion. In general, most people just want to have a house, food and some money (some want more than others) to have a nice living and no matter what background or religion, there ale ALWAYS some fanatic nutcases.
Some make it into politics, and we have had some bad experience with that in Europe, and others form terrorist cells, but in most cases it's a small group with a lot of impact that spoils it for the rest and now Wilders gets waytoo much attention for his movie, wich, at this moment nobody has seen yet.
Privacy is terrorism.
You can't possibly call genocide self-defense.
I am Dutch too and despite not agreeing with everything this guy says, I have also been delving into religion and mythology long enough and experience enough in the Middle East personally to know he makes very valid points. So I assume, unlike the grandparent, you have seen the film.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Well, there's the KKK in America and abortion clinic bombings. And historically, there's the Holocaust and the Crusades. So please be aware that art mocking political and religious leaders has gotten people slaughtered throughout history, including by Christians of various types.
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
The content of the website was no more than a single sentence "Coming soon - Fitna", and a picture of the Quoran. If that is considered objectional, than any and all websites can be declared in violation of those terms and conditions!
No-one knows the content of this movie. Mr. Wilders has announced that he will show the dark sides of Islam. However, he has not been seen with camera teams, not has anyone else seen camera's in action. With the amount of media attention his announcement got, it would be naive to think that any related movie set would go unnoticed! Most likely the movie will be a documentary using existing material from previously shown sources.
Mr. Wilders does not have to release his movie anymore - The ridiculous responses to just the announcements, including Network Solutions becoming a censor, proves his point that Islam has no self-reflection and should be considered a dangerous movement to Western freedom.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
A conflict between human social groups has escalated to one between secularist orthodoxy and muslim orthodoxy. Lots of people are trying their best to show how fiercely orthodox they can be, in a "I am more righteous than thou be-est" contest. Network Solutions has just been caught in the middle. Having this site up long before putting his movie on it (if it even exists), is clearly a major tactical blunder of its creator.
Abortion clinic bombing. Abortion doctor killing. True those are not suicide bombing. They are even more coward, they pose their bomb and then go away.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
in many middle east countries, hatred towards west, christianity, jews, abd, europe is propagated through even publications and media of state. apart from that 'private' media, sects and such are preaching every kinds of hate towards everything west counts sacred too. stuff that one wouldnt dare repeat in a post here goes as ordinary sermons in many places. and mohammad cartoons pale in comparison to whats being spoken and circulated about west and its holy values in middle east.
west tolerates it. they dont go rioting and threatening to kill people over constant disrespect that is being done towards west and western values in middle east. not only that, but they even endure the filthy terrorism that results from this atmosphere when the radical sources make use of that hatred to recruit and make people go kill themselves and others.
yet, muslims do not offer the same kind of tolerance and enduring to west. in any smallest criticism or comment brought towards anything they think that is relevant to themselves, they make big stampede, create diplomatic rows, threaten to kill people, even they do kill people.
this is the biggest hypocrisy that exists on the face of the world as of now. just like a selfish, extremely self centered persona wants everything his/her way, intolerant of anyone else.
just check out the replies to this post. you'll find out that that intolerance can exist even among people who read slashdot.
Read radical news here
I don't know if you're posting this excerpt in support of their actions, or merely providing interesting information. But I'll make some comments on the quoted paragraphs.
Whilst I empathise with their desire to disassociate themselves from the beliefs of this politician, their statement that they are "against censorship" is not compatible with their activities of spreading disinformation and drowning out of the original message.It's only bias and double standards that allow them to think they are not trying to censor the original movie. Their defence against that charge, if you look at it logically, is merely that they aren't completely successful in censoring the movie, not that they aren't trying to do so! And whether or not they are successful is a point of debate. After all, I tried to download what I was told was the movie, to find that it was an archive of pirated music. I personally avoid pirating music as I don't agree with it and now I find myself torrenting the bloody stuff. You can imagine that I resent being lied to.
If these groups wish to counter the message of the film, then they should produce a commentary to the film that addresses the points within it. If they can do this, then they will more successfully undermine the politician's beliefs and convince people of their case. If they can't do this, then they do not have an argument against what he says. Preventing people from seeing the film by whatever method is still censorship. Do I need to expand on what is wrong with that?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Network Solutions have absolutely no objections against hosting the worst of objectionable material in existence. Guess who hosts .. Hesbollah.org?
http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/us-hizbolla-yes-wilders-no/
This is cowardice, pure and simple. I think we need legilative improvements to protect our freedom of expression. And communication. This includes protecting ISP's from at least some kinds of legal responsibility for their contents - Common Carrier (see Wikipedia) seems a suitable model.
Defending Civil Liberties has never been more important. It's so good to see at least _some_ individuals standing up for this.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
> Apparently you already have made up your mind that it will be an '[...] inflamatory, hatefull [sic] movie
Talk about selective quoting.. Who moderated this up?
The GP said 'Even if', so he's mind is not already set as you're saying.
I despise religions but that's not a reason to make false statement with 'selective' quotings.
"Lot's of Dutch folks are very upset about the young firebrand politician Wilders, and wish he'd go shut up and go away. So, they are planning a googlebomb, to in the hopes of undermining the exposure the film Fitna receives."
Just because of this, I will now watch the movie, even though I had no plans to previously.
I wish people trying to censor other people would shut up and go away.
Dictatorships don't tolerate free speech, and almost all states that have majority muslim populations are dictatorships of some sort. We won't know if islam tolerates free speech until those country's have an educated population and a government by the people. Of course once a population is educated then religion dies off so perhaps we will never know.
There are a few cases where muslim countries have transitioned (Indonesia), but their democracies are still very shaky and have not yet been established long enough to educate the populace. Watch this space tho.
Which is not to say that there isn't something barbaric going on in the Muslim world. Could it have something to do with the average income of Muslims being about 1/7 of incomes in the west? Could it have something to do with the west often financing those of their leaders that are fascist strongmen like Musharraf, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Suharto?
I think its not so much the people taking an analytical view of the situation and making an educated decision on who to blame for their predicament here, but more the dictatorial governments needing someone else to blame game. They blame the west, much like many african countries do, and rather like Georgie boy blames the terrorists. Its not the fact that the country is run by corrupt fascists lining their own pockets, its the west you see, there's a conspiracy to keep them down because we in the west all hate islam/are neo colonialists don't-cha-know. Tactics like this appeal to the ignorant and uneducated, and when most of your population is that, it forms a pretty good political base.
Muslims living the US do pretty well for themselves, higher than average incomes, and there's never been an 'incident' involving a US Muslim. What's the difference? I'm betting its education & opportunity.
Give the muslim world good government, good education and the opportunity that comes with it and you'll have open dialog instead of violent protest. Simple.
...so now even Slashdot is 'in to it' ?
....
I think I'm freaking out - we hardly hear anything else than "Wilders' new movie" here on the news (in The Netherlands), now even my favorite slack-log is detailing it.
I think I'm going to work for Micro$oft now
because he's advocating seperation and instead of working together,
Curious....what's your opinion of the muslims there calling for their own little societies, completely removed from Dutch culture, with their sharia law replacing Dutch law?
Note that I really don't know much about Wilders, but I am always suspicious of people who say someone "advocates hate" and is against people who aren't white, as that usually is just not true. The same things are said in the US about anyone who thinks illegal immigration is a problem.
I would also like to point out that Hirsi Ali is also "really working hard to make that a reality" (getting herself killed by some crazy Muslim), merely by criticizing Islam. Is she one of those hate filled, white-loving bigots as well?
-john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
There's a slight chance the film will not be inflammatory and hateful (quit the ad hominem sic please, we're all Dutch here.) There is very little chance that certain religious groups will not be offended at all.
I think the GP deftly avoided the blanket statement you fell for: "certain groups." Just like with Theo van Gogh (for the rest of the world: a cinematographer who made a short film about women's rights under the Koran and was killed by a crazy Muslim) there will be crazy folks with an axe to grind.
About the validity of Wilders' points, I'm sure we can find good sides to every person. I also think that the Netherlands as a nation is worse off with this clown in our parliament. The man is one-issue (rest of the world: the issue being "there are too many foreigners in the Netherlands.") He's trying to instill fear in the Dutch people, fear of the Islam and of foreigners in general. There's a word for it: xenophobia. In a multi cultural society like ours, xenophobia is a bad thing.
In this Saturday's Volkskrant, there was a large piece about all kinds of Islamic groups in the Netherlands, like the LBM (Landelijk Beraad Marokkanen / National Morocan Society) actually and actively defending the Dutch government and society by sending messages to Islamic "hot zones" explaining our stance in the matter, telling them how well integrated they are, how many mosques there are in the Netherlands, etc. The piece is titled "We're not Denmark," an unfortunate title for a text that communicates openness, referring to the Mohammed cartoons.)
Of note is the anti-movement on Youtube: people posting short films saying sorry, titled "Fitna by Geert Wilders", in the hope that a search for the film will yield only apologies.
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society. If Wilders wants to make "valid points" he is free to do so but not as part of our parliament. I think it's very unfortunate that he's getting so much attention, especially from abroad. People tend to think that he represents all of Holland, which is very far from the truth. This is not good advertisement for our nation.
The only historic context most of Islam seems to care about is which part of the Surahs came later.
To the muslim invasion. Once again, we can stop people from insulting muslims, but let fly the attack web sites on Christanity. It's insane.
Again I urge any of you that are currently buying into this 'peaceful' religion BS to do some research.
Unlike Christanity, where the ten commandments apply to dealings with everyone, Islam's versions of the commandments only apply when dealing with other Muslims. Think I'm lying? Good. Don't trust me. Don't trust the muslims. Go read it for yourself. It's there in black and white in the Koran.
EK
while risking an offtopic mod, I'm always on the look out for something to read that I might have missed.
Which titles fit your mod requirement? want to make sure I'd not missed anything.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I know that my country holland was one of the most liberal countries in the world and proud of amsterdam being the gay capital.
Now dutch teachers are afraid to discuss homosexuality in class because muslim kids take offence, violently.
Teachers are afraid to teach about the holocaust because of the reaction from muslim kids.
Islam is tearing this country apart because for far too long everyone has tried to cover up any problems. The really bad part is that if this had been dealt with from the beginning their wouldn't be a problem, but now an entire generation of muslim kids has grown up who think they got the right as a minority to dictate how the country should be run.
Make no mistake, some muslims want to introduce Sharia law into this country and are deadly serious about this.
The problem is not the religion itself, we got other extremists here, but the fact that nobody dares to stand up to it.
There is a small religious party that does not allow women to be elected. They are condemned, but when a muslim group suggests that it should be okay to marry at 14, all the powers that be shit their collective pants for fear of offending.
Wilders and others are the voice of the people who are sick to death of this cowardly behavuour and no longer want the problems ignored.
The sad fact is that muslims extremists simply aren't dealt with the same as other extremists and this had led to problems. Take the riots in france, now says that catholics had done the rioting, would the world have been nearly as apologetic? What if it had been blacks? No.
Wilders says a lot of things, but mostly people hear someone who finally is showing a backbone. Don't think Wilders is alone, the socialist SP is riding on the same wave of resentment against how the mainstream has been doing business.
the current goverment only exist because Pim Fortuyn got killed. If he had lived he might well have had the largest party. Wilders is a lot more extreme and people know this, but they hope that he will force the major parties to finally do something and not just bury their heads in the sand.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, the nmo.nl (Dutch Muslim television) even agreed to put the film on show, but for some reason mr. Wilders did not want that. We will probably never know what really went on behind the scenes. As others have said, I might not agree with mr. Wilders, but as long as is is not too insulting (how could we, mere mortals, insult a big almighty anyhow). He has a nack for living right on the edge, so i do not believe he will call for the destruction of Islam, but I'm sure there are enough things that were previously on CNN or Al Jazeraa, combined with specific verses, that will do about the same.
What is ridiculous is that it isn't the film that people are concerned about - it is the reaction of some section of the Muslim community.
I live in the US - we have tons of nutty, racist or homophobic groups running around. Some make news, but never on this scale. Why not? Because whatever negative things may be said about 'Americans' one thing we as a nation do reasonably well (not perfectly, but reasonably) is let asshats speak. Then we ignore them, and they generally fade into the woodwork. A Few examples:
- Nation of Islam. Hasn't gotten much bigger over the last 40 years, despite all the hoopla when Louis Farrakhan calls whites 'Blue eyed devils' or such from time to time.
- A tiny church in rural Arkansas (I believe) that pickets the funerals of dead servicemembers because they believe god is allowing US soldiers to die because America tolerates Gays and Lesbians. No kidding. Point and laugh, they get media attention, but no one takes them seriously, except as a bunch of asshats.
The big deal here is not some (alleged) wingnut politician and a 15-minute film - it is the anticipation of a few million oversensitized Muslims (note: I am not saying *all* muslims are oversensitised, I am saying some are) rioting and killing each other and a few innocent bystanders in reaction to a film that in the grand scheme of things makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. Oh, except the people who get mauled by the rioters.
Freedom of speech is about being able to speak your mind without fear of censorship or 'undue' consequence - i.e., being murdered for said speech. I submit a part and parcel of that freedom is the freedom to ignore anothers' freely-made speech, or respond with your own. To those Muslims who may be offended by this film (which no one has as yet seen):
1. Make your own film. Blaspheme Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, etc. as you see fit. Watch as the rest of the world refrains from rioting and killing people over it.
2. Prepare a point-for-point rebuttal of the films' key themes and arguments once you see it. Upload the rebuttal to Youtube. Observe how people will listen to you and consider what you have said.
3. Ignore this film when it is released. See how fast is falls off the memetic map.
In the US, unlike Europe, speech that is controversial or even factually wrong is allowed, unless it is actually defamatory toward a person. You can't say someone is a prositute unless you can back it up with proof, but you may publicly deny the holocaust here all you like, in print and in person. The US also has more Jews than Israel. You might expect then that such denial would be a big deal, right? Wrong. The only media coverage of holocaust denial we really see here is when some idiot who writes a book on it goes to Germany and gets arrested for holocaust denial, or an occasional overwrought member of B'Nai Brith crying in the media about antisemitism and pointing to three pointy-headed rednecks in rural Nebraska who have a pro-Nazi website set up, thus gaining the neo-nazis more media attantion than they ever would have received had BB never said anything about them at all.
I'll go out on a limb and further state that despite the fact that we have a frightening number of 'new Earth' creationists here and American secondary education is terrible, asshats who deny the holocaust are vanishingly few and of no importance in the American media environment. Yes, you can tell the 'big lie' over and over, but it only sticks if you can make it stick by removing competing messages. In a truly free-speech environment, lies can't survive over the long-term or gain real traction because more people are concerned with truth than with lying (we can debate exactly what proportion, but it only takes >50% for truth to eventually win).
Take the 'free speech' lesson from us, oh enraged Muslim masses. It is far more effective to say 'Eh. She/he is an asshat. Ignore them.' The Asshats will go away, and pretty quickly at that. Paying attention to them, though, will make them breed like roaches. Or trolls.
Well, as a Bosnian though I can't speak for all of us, I don't think your national pride should be injured. Your government did resign in the acknowledgment of the error committed there.
I don't think the Dutch were alone in the failure to protect Srebrenica, the whole "Blue Helmet" mandate was toothless.
But like I said, with the collective resignation of your government, even your politicians have shown great honor. Samurai kind of stuff...
Let's not forget who the bad guys in Srebrenica actually were.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Or would you have expected a treaty about the greatness of Jewish heritage from a certain moustached little Austrian?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And the fact that you are afraid that 'some crazy muslim [will] kill him' already points out a problem with said group when it comes to accepting critique.
Oh, don't be stupid. If I created a movie that went out of it's way to deeply criticize baptist Christians, it's probably not unreasonable for me to be afraid of visiting the deep south in the US. *Every* religion has it's extremists. It's not unreasonable to be at least somewhat fearful if you go out of your way to bait them into violence.
Free speech should not be undermined just because some religious people are overly sensitive to any criticism to their beliefs. All beliefs must be subject to questioning - especially those held close to the heart. Stiffling free speech is the beginning of the downfall of any society. No religion (Islam, Christinality, Judaism) is above criticism and the pursuit of truth. If their religion has merit, then there should be nothing to fear.
*Every* religion has it's extremists.
True, but some religions seem to have way more extremists, both total and per capita, than others...
If radical Islam wins, it will be because of pussy-ass shit like this. Until the West stops being nice and tells these backwards medieval Koran-thumpers to go fuck themselves, they will only get stronger and stronger.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
if they pass a law that is anathema to only a loud shrill fringe, say those who don't believe in abortions, or those who don't believe in income tax, then bombing then is inappropriate
if they pass a law which wholeheartedly and majorly impoverishes a majority of the american people, then yes, bomb them
however, we are a democracy, and one of the wonderful things about a democracy is that it is responsive to the people's wishes. in other words, in a healthy democracy, it will never come to bombing our own government, since our government is always a pretty good approximation of our wishes. all you have to do is vote the senators out, not actually kill them. in a healthy democracy, the wishes of the people get reflected in the makeup of the government, in a close enough approximation
however if our government mutated into a sham democracy, such as what you have in russia or iran, or an autocracy like china or north korea or zimbabwe or burma, then bombing the government is very much an option on the table, since the average citizen there has his wishes usurped by the agenda of a special clique or class of people who is not beholden to the will of the people in that country
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Cultures don't change in the space of a generation. Militant Islam might confuse civilized behavior for cowardice, but this is the same world Hitler was born in. If militant Islam keeps creating martyrs in the west then shit is going to hit the fan in the next big economic downturn.
"I suggest you do a little research on the meaning of "freedom of speech.""
I suggest you do a little research on European law. This isn't the United States we're talking about, and most countries in post-Holocaust Europe have laws against "hate speech."
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Oh yes, indeed, I see the light now: all those crowds must be staged by the Zionists in their neverending quest for world domination.
I am consistently amazed by the rights that people, particularly Americans since this is where I reside, think they have. It used to amuse me. Then it saddened me. Now it frightens me to see the "false rights" that people want defended. They include, but certainly are not limited to:
;-)
1. Freedom from being offended.
- I've actually heard people who think that offending a person audibly is equally punishable as assaulting a person physically. When I tried to argue this idea, they kept yelling "It's the same thing. It's the same thing. It's the same F---ing thing."
2. Freedom _from_, not _of_, religion.
- It's arguable (as are all things regarding religion http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion#Usage_notes ), but everyone has a religion. (Religion as in a person's believe _regarding_, not necessarily in, deities.) So, just because you are an atheist, you don't have a right to total isolation from religion. Although I sympathize at how annoyed you must be.
3. Constitutional right to vote.
- This was even spoke of recently by Barack Obama. I'm disturbed to see how many people think the U.S. Constitution affords them a right to vote. The truth is, the Federal Government only restricts the criteria that can be used for denying a person the privilege of voting. Your state's constitution may protect additional rights, but that is rarely ever spoken of. I think that it would increase voter turn out if we properly described voting as a privilege instead of a right.
4. The right to drive an automobile.
- This is certainly a privilege, not a right. It is also a privilege that is too freely granted, and too infrequently denied or revoked.
Please feel free to contribute to the list. I guess you have the _right_ to argue with it too, but why would you want to?
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the
We should not have to risk our lives for something to deserve it. We have our for-fathers to thank for that. We just need to stay vigilant and make sure that it stays that way.
"Everything is "hate crime" and suddenly we must go to some sort of doublespeak sensitivity training to accomodate that. "
Assuming you're in Europe ("we"), it's your countries and your laws.
"anything anyone wants to say that displeases you should be considered hate crime, and as such forbidden. It sounds remarkably as a first step towards state-sanctioned Sharia law."
And it also describes laws in Europe in the past few decades, even predating the current influx of Islamic immigrants. Protected speech in Europe doesn't include, for example, Holocaust denial.
With your command of English, it seems safe to assume that you've spent a great deal of time immersed in American media and American pop culture, and American views on what "freedom of speech" means. However, simply because you feel something should be does not make it so, and your own duly elected representatives have crafted your own laws shaping what speech is and is not protected. But you would choose to blame the newly-arrived Islamic immigrant for seeking the protection of laws that you the native-born have crafted for yourselves long before his arrival? Because it goes against the ideals of a foreign-produced television drama?
In this case Network Solutions is what i would call dangerous to western freedom.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Yeah, and it had channel logos from Al-Jazeera and various other middle eastern TV stations. And online newspapers from Iran, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia that mysteriously change the meaning of their headlines when you switch the language from Arabicto English. Read any Iranian newspaper in Arabic through the Google translator and then again in "original" English. When you see it, you'll shit bricks, so to speak. Or watch MEMRI.TV when you're bored sometimes.
Yeah, I know of the accusations against MEMRI, but sooner or later you'll learn what the usual chants like "Death to America, death to Israel!" sounds like in Arabic and then you meet these chants again and again on all major middle eastern TV stations. And mysteriously also on Western European demonstrations for "peace in the middle east".
But then again, this may ALL be a conspiracy by ChimpyMcBushHitler and his Jewish companions...
"As a dutch colored guy"
What color is dutch, exatly?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Could you provide an example of violence perp'ed by baptists because of religious critisism? Based on what I see, pretty much every day it seems someone comes out with something saying "Christians are dumb", and I haven't heard anything in the news about retalitory killings. Shoot Trey Parker and Matt Stone haven't had any trouble and they've made some less than flattering South Park episodes.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
Assuming you're in Europe ("we"), it's your countries and your laws.
That's a correct assumption, and the laws are not sacred by virtue of existing. I'm highly critical of the latest EU-wide directives concerning "hate speech" since they are overly generic and encompassing, but that's another topic.
And it also describes laws in Europe in the past few decades, even predating the current influx of Islamic immigrants. Protected speech in Europe doesn't include, for example, Holocaust denial.
Which is not something I agree with.
With your command of English, it seems safe to assume that you've spent a great deal of time immersed in American media and American pop culture, and American views on what "freedom of speech" means.
I appreciate the compliment, but I wouldn't say I was - or am - "immersed" in American pop culture, at least not more than any other European due to the sheer magnitude of US influence in Western Europe and the world. One thing is for sure, I do not base my views on this matter on American perception and I'm generally quite critical of US policies and even cultural influence in Europe. Just as an example I'm socialist in most of my views - real socialist, not what passes as Socialism in the US.
However, simply because you feel something should be does not make it so,
That's a given for any topic where we present our opinion isn't it? I'm stating why I think Muslim immigration raises specific concerns by replying to a "moderate" Muslim and pointing out some rather essential divergences on what should and shouldn't be allowed. That doesn't mean it's the law of the land: actually, I'm under the impression that most laws are being changed to accomodate what shouldn't be accommodated, IMO.
and your own duly elected representatives have crafted your own laws shaping what speech is and is not protected.
Of course. Which I'm free to disagree with. You're basically saying that we're digging our own grave, and I agree with that.
But you would choose to blame the newly-arrived Islamic immigrant for seeking the protection of laws that you the native-born have crafted for yourselves long before his arrival?
I'm not sure what you're implying here. The secularisation of European society since the Enlightenment is something that I would consider an advancement. If you're comparing the Holocaust laws with this, then I can agree with you: those laws should disappear, if not only to stop giving that argument to those who are so keen to turn Europe into a Caliphate but at the same time fight against the dominance of Christianity. As I said elsewhere I'm a Pagan, so I don't really care for either, just find it interesting that so many people in the Left seem to complacent for a situation that is deeply reactionary, simply because it's born out of "newly-arrived Islamic immigrants".
Because it goes against the ideals of a foreign-produced television drama?
Sorry? Are you referring to the supposed US-based nature of my comments again? As I said, that's not my position at all, much to the contrary. If anything I'm generally accused of being excessively European in my approach of this issues.
This debate must however stop since it would probably lead us to a discussion about not only free speech but immigration, culture, race, nationality laws, identity, etc. And that's a debate I can't afford to have for several reasons, not least of all the laws you referred and the fact that the simple mention of such angles is enough to be labeled hate speech.
Meanwhile, most radical islamic web sites, which explicity call for the murder of innocent civilians, continue to be hosted in the United States by other Web hosts.
[source]
The site you criticize is a rundown of the latest headlines from the ME, with a slight focus towards Lebanon:
...
* Fatah & Hamas Ink Reconciliation Deal
* The Gaza siege claims its 115th victim
* Parcel Bomb Wounds "Israeli" Settler
* US Death Toll in Iraq Hits 4,000
What is so objectionable about that? This one perhaps:
* "I am a human being," young Guantanamo prisoner says
send + more == money?
"Anti-Semitism is not a crime."
In many European countries, you have.
"I can hate all the Jews I want because they are Jewish and I've committed no crime."
Deny that the Holocaust happened and you have.
"That's the core of the Freedom of Speech, to say that which everyone hates and thinks is wrong."
This isn't the United States.
"yet stating that you want the State to enforce, through violence (the only way to enforce a law, including those against "hate crimes") when you are unable or unwilling to use violence yourself."
So... you're bitching about European Muslims seeking the same legal protections afforded to other religious and ethnic minorities because they're not being violent enough? It would be better for them to seize control in a bloody coup?
You lecture about what is and is not illegal (in the United States), about when forcible action is and is not justified, but then follow it with an assertion that all forcible action is inherently wrong, and he's the hypocrite?
Tell me, AK Marc, where's your bloody insurrection to justify the pork sent to Alaska?
You, and several million of your friends, have to be willing...no make that eager, to murder people if you do not get your way. You must constantly remind all who will listen of how sensitive you are to any hint that you will not get your way. "Spontaneous" demonstrations in which your followers wail, thrash themselves about, and burn your enemies in effigy are generally pretty effective, especially if said followers can be encouraged to act like complete fuckwads on camera.
At the same time, you must promote your group as a "religion of togetherness" or something equally pleasant sounding but meaningless phrase. Should anyone ever call you on the tendency of your group to murder people, you must respond by calling them bigots, reminding them that you are the religion of togetherness, and finish off with veiled threats that if they don't shut up, you'll murder them too.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You're association of a spoken interview that included things offensive to a specific political and religious group with the *act* of filming the rape or molestation of a child is facetious and destroys most if not all of your credibility.
That said, I will answer your statement that freedom of expression ends with offensiveness. The trite phrase "no right to not be offended" is just that, trite. The issue goes much further.
No political, religious or social group has the right, or legal authority, to tell me, and individual, what I can think, write, or even scream from the rooftops; laws about public nuisance not-withstanding since their content neutral as written.
If someone says something in a public forum that you find offensive, inaccurate or inflamatory, then you have the right to take up a public forum of your own and espouse your opinions on that topic. You do not, nor should you in any free society, be able to use force of arms to silence that opposition.
Contrary to the discussion here, though, I support NetSol's rights to shutter that website. Their terms of service are a contract signed by the film-maker when he put his website on their servers. They have every legal amd moral right to act as they did. They are a private organization who said up front "do this and we'll pull the plug".
What are his options? Simple. Find an ISP or web host who has a bit more testicular fortitude and move his site there. It's called free enterprise and it works quite well.
Should NetSol have pulled the plug? In my opinion, as a business owner myself who deals in sometimes offensive and edgy content, I say "hell no". You can not BUY the kind of marketing that this type of contoversy can build. You also can not, and wouldn't want to, buy the kind of negative marketing their actions took.
I'd love to see the numbers on how many accounts switch to other providers and registrars over the next 90 days.
Liberty, if it means anything at all, is the right to tell other people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
When I said outlined specifics, I meant:
'At 9:15 am, no one will be watching the door, so you can slip in and plant a bomb here, here and here, please refer to the blueprints on page 12' type of specifics.
not
'kill em all, shoot em in the head. kill em all, shoot em in their bed'
Actually, I was mistaken - I had assumed these two particular stories to be mid-career works, but they were in fact early - these are what I was thinking of when I made the comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_(short_story)
Of course, nearly all of Heinlein's work is good stuff, and it's interesting to watch his own beliefs as expressed through his work change and broaden over the years.
There is absolutely nothing new in what Islam preaches. Considering the immense level of faith that Europeans displayed in the 11th century, its a wonder we don't start calling it the 'Age of Glory' rather than the 'Dark Ages'. Based on Christian dogma, all those superstitious victims of ignorance in the dark ages are now laughing it up in divine splendor. Muslims want nothing more than what the every God fearing Christian soul apparently gets.
And far be it for me or anyone to make God or their prophet look like an ass. God hates those who are unjust.
At least the Quran is clear that if God sends you to hell, its because he hates you. Christianity seems to hold the position that eternal damnation awaits those whom God loves.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
....require submission to God....
Submission to the God of the Bible is voluntary. Christians are not admonished to kill those who will not submit to Christ. Of course, sadly, they have done this throughout the intervening centuries, since Jesus Christ walked here on Earth.
We humans live in a sin soaked, imperfect environment here on Earth. We are told this was not so in the beginning and will not be in the end. In all humans there is a deep, inexpressible yearning for a perfect world, free of evil. Religion is but one manifestation of this.
God has, for our sake, taken steps to keep evil down to some tolerable level. He once wiped the population off the planet, to give humanity another fresh start. So where are we today?
Jesus tells us that just before the end, mankind will attempt to wipe themselves off the Earth and He will have to intervene to prevent that. We certainly have the modern WMD's to make that a reality.
While here on Earth, Jesus made some extraordinary claims. He claimed to be God in human form. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He provided this evidence by His resurrection. Christendom just commemorated that event yesterday. Everyone MAY believe this. However we are also told:
John 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
Read the whole chapter 3 of John to get the context.
All theory is gray
The cited article never mentions a religion. Maybe the bomber was discovered to be an evangelical at a later time, but not in this article. Either way, even as the article mentions, an anti-abortion protester at the scene called the attack "heinous" and the governor of Alabama (almost certainly a Christian of some denomination) condemned the attack. This was an individual acting as an individual. Did any respected Christian religious leader justify this attack? If so, cite the article, otherwise, your argument doesn't apply to this discussion. Muslim suicide bombers do not act as individuals, in fact, they are encouraged and supported by their family, by their Muslim religious leaders, and indeed by entire countries. Recall Saddam Hussein's payments to the families of suicide bombers? Besides, let's focus on the fact that Christian bombings are the exception, not the rule. When was the last clinic bombing by a Christian? I don't really know, but it probably has been years or decades (the article you cite is over 10 years old). When was the last Muslim suicide bombing/attack -- last week or two? The very fact that these attacks happen so infrequently is proof that this type of behavior is not condoned by the Christian community. Contrast that to the frequency of Muslim attacks of this nature.
I don't like it any more than you do, but you are in violation.
NetSol terms of service clearly says "objectionable material of any kind or nature", and someone just objected to your material, thus they make claim* of the right to revoke your services.
* Make claim of the right. Not the same as Has that right. But clearly by their actions, NetSol doesn't care about the difference. They need a good smack in the face with some law.
Heb. 8:6-13 KJV
Basically, that crazy stuff in Deuteronomy, that's all part of the Old Covenant -- "that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" -- and no longer applies. It doesn't go so far as to say that God made an error, rather the fault was with the Hebrews. But because God's just a nice guy, he's giving everyone a great big do-over with some more relaxed rules.
Anyway, that's the religion. The history of it is more complicated, but my understanding is that it's thought to have been written by an anonymous, erudite follower of Paul, basically in response to a lot of confusion (aka "heresy") over the relationship between the new Christian teachings and the older Hebrew/Jewish ones, sometime around 100 CE. The intended audience would have been Jewish-Christian converts facing persecution for their religion, and who might have been considering apostasy. (cf. WP) It was added to the canon sometime in the 4th Century (though wrongly attributed to Paul) and has pretty much been The Final Word on the topic pretty much ever since.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There's a slight chance the film will not be inflammatory and hateful (quit the ad hominem sic please, we're all Dutch here.)
Based on Wilders statements, it's pretty clear what the film will be showing: atrocities committed in the name of Islam (both historically and contemporarily), as well as an analysis of the language of the Koran itself. Of course, that will be "inflammatory" to Muslims; what is wrong with that? There is no indication that it will be "hateful". Can you point to a single actually hateful thing Wilders has said about Muslims?
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society.
With attitudes like yours, the Netherlands won't have a multi-cultural society much longer: free speech and freedom of religion requires the freedom to offend people. Questioning the moral and spiritual foundation of a religion must be protected in a free society, and, of course, it is offensive and inflammatory for adherents of that religion. Protestants fought hard for that right, and we're not going to abandon it.
If Wilders wants to make "valid points" he is free to do so but not as part of our parliament
If the Netherlands is still a democracy, then Wilders has the right to represent the people who elected them.
People tend to think that he represents all of Holland, which is very far from the truth. This is not good advertisement for our nation.
You are not a good advertisement for your nation either, because your vision of multi-culturalism is undemocratic.
And they're the only "fanatics"?
I'd consider the entirety of folks in Pajamas Media(LGF, Malkin, etc.) fanatics of an equal degree for them not even documenting much if anything towards peace. They foam at the mouth when things like this happen. The universal opinion with their walled garden is that they are not fanatics, yet foam just the same.
* Someone on Digg threatens their small (unseen) corner? Attack!
* Someone wishes to show that there are peaceful people in Gaza that would rather be uninvolved? Demonize!
* Someone points out that they're paying for oil that comes from Saudi Arabia, pointing their policy on Israel? I'm not sure, but my guess is (short of a prepared talking point in their possession) is that they'll look towards their cooperation towards the US.
* Someone amongst them misfires, and quits in shame? Attack those calling it victory!
* Someone states that they're a "one opinion" community and that restriction of opinion is good? Demonize them as a Kossack(even if they aren't)!
But that wouldn't make for good news if they showed the lives of the peaceful among the claimed fanatics. Nor would it be news to show that both protect their own communities in their own form. Digg does it by keeping them in their own corner, DKos for banning, both on open terms(to name a couple of the groups attacked).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If I created a movie that went out of it's way to deeply criticize baptist Christians, it's probably not unreasonable for me to be afraid of visiting the deep south in the US.
Can you give examples of baptist Ministers pronouncing death sentences? Can you give examples of film makers or cartoonists being killed by baptist terrorists? Can you name any baptist terrorist organizations?
Your argument is akin to saying that since children eventually become adults, childhood experiences never happened. In other words, your lack of understaning of even basic literary knowledge of the Bible (much less the doctrinal or historical aspects) has led you to posit something that makes no sense at all.
For instance, the 10 commandments are already invalidated for Christians.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I never violated their terms of service... What are you talking about? I am just a guy with a personal web site. You are just someone with a loaded gun I walked into. They began their life as INTERNIC and I just stayed with them from the beginning. Who are you mad at exactly?
I myself think that it's difficult to be too nasty to any religion. But difficult is not the same as impossible. For instance, if this film incites violence against adherents of Islam, then a ban (and prosecution of those responsible) is the right move. Unfortunately the mods missed - the movie itself is flamebait. Those who come from both ends of the spectrum on Islam will no doubt make their voices heard.
If that was what he intended, fine - but he should have been a bit more careful about selecting a provider.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Kansas, actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps
The only reason I remember this is having listened to a radio talk show that baited his wife and kids (not very difficult) into making some real humdinger statements in a phone interview.
---PCJ
Which means you don't have freedom of speech.
When you suppress speech because it might offend someone, you leave the door open to suppress anything and everything. No matter what you say, there's always someone who will be offended. For example, "I love kittens" could offend people with cat phobias.
The muslim world is offended by all criticism. They are offended by the slightest bit of disagreement. Unfortunately, Europe has allowed their ultra-thin skin to destroy free speech. I forget his name, but there's a billionaire muslim in England who keeps suing people (using the hate-speech argument) who criticize islam, not matter how even handed and fair the criticism might be. No one can afford to take on a legal battle with someone who has virtually unlimited funds and the support of an idiotic law.
-- Will program for bandwidth
No, that is thanks to learning history, science, math, and should I say history? Not repeating mistakes of the past is probably something that creates sceptics to mass dilusions.
Sorry, but indoctrinating a 3 year old into any one of these groups is a lot easier than trying to show the reality to them and let them decide for themselves. Reality of the above True Believers (don't say that any of them are not!) is enough to say "I'll just live my life according to human morality and laws. And when I die, I'll see if there is anything there". Any real "merciful god", if any, would not have problems with that. If they do have a problem, they can go and fsck themselves.
Remember people, when you see the light, run. It is a trick!
I have noticed people tend to think of corporations as individuals. Network Solutions is a company of people, and someone somewhere made the decision about the movie and the domain hosting, but it is probably not anyone you or I will ever run into. If you decide to put up a web site that challenged their sensibilities, you can choose to litigate or move your site when the time comes. Network Solutions has made several wrong headed decisions in my memory but they have also made millions of good decisions in the history of their company. Did Network Solutions board of directors vote and are they somehow involved in the censoring decision, that you should make them responsible and blame the entire company to the point of boycotting their registration services? In the old days of the Arpa network, you used to have to get the signature of a sponsor before you were allowed to get on the net. If the sponsor didn't like your behavior, you might be warned, or simple gone. If you embarrassed your sponsor, you might be warned or just out. Things are dramatically easier these days, and you really have to work at it to get kicked off the Internet. I guess what I am saying is that Network Solutions only pissed me off once since 1991 and has been a good registrar and provider for me since then. Business people need reliable provider's so they can sleep at night. I would rather they make some decisions and err on the side of caution than behave as a mindless machine. Just my opinions...
You're right, sort of.
My conclusions about polygamy and violence are based on historical rather than current records. I don't know what the current state is. But cultural attitudes tend to persist even after the instigating circumstance has abated. So..
1. Having multiple wives is not allowed by the governments of most Muslim countries.
Polygamy used to be permitted. It's allowed by the Koran.
2. Even where it is allowed (very few places) it is a very very small majority of the population that has multiple wives.
This is true, and has always been true. And it's still true that societies that practice Polygamy tend to have higher levels of violence.
3. Violence is *not* common in Muslim countries. I'm not sure where you get your news from (or if you just imagine it) but please do your research before making vague and blatant statements like these.
And I'm not sure how you could justify your statement, either. Probably we're classifying different incidents as violence. That said, there is a large amount of evidence for violence in muslim countries. I'll admit that most of what I'm considering is several decades old, but occasional news stories come along that indicate it's still and on-going problem. (Well, *I* think of it as a problem.) I have a friend whose daughter is currently residing in a muslim country as a muslim. *SHE*, the daughter, thinks my opinions are unreasonable. But she doesn't deny the facts upon which they are based. (I think she's a masochist to chose such a lifestyle, but it was her free choice...her children won't have that choice.)
Could I recommend a book to you. It's called "Not without my daughter!"
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Addition to any criminal sentence of the prohibition of owning firearms -- after the sentencing. In other words, there was no such prohibition in place, the sentence was passed and served, then later, the same person was forbidden to own firearms as a consequence of having been previously punished (convicted or not, for instance, adjudication withheld) for [a very broad class of] crimes, and no subsequent offense and related conviction exists to directly add such punishment. (Fails [3] below)
Addition to a criminal's sentence by publicly listing personal details about them as a sexual and/or violent offender when no such law was in place at the time of their sentencing, no such listing was ordered as part of their sentencing, and no subsequent offense and related conviction exists to directly add such punishment. In some states and in certain situation such as transfer of probation such additional penalties are applied to those who have had adjudication withheld. Also, federal legislation following this practice is either in place or being worked on for a national registry. (Fails [3] below)
Addition to a criminal's sentence by forcing them to report their place of residence to authorities (such as the local sheriff's department) under threat of further punishment when no such law was in place at the time of their sentencing, no such reporting was ordered as part of their sentencing, and no subsequent offense and related conviction exists to directly add such punishment. In some states and in certain situations such as transfer of probation such additional penalties are applied to those who have had adjudication withheld. (Fails [3] below)
Addition to a criminal's sentence of being punished by forbidding them to live in certain areas, such as near schools or parks, when no such law was in place at the time of their sentencing, and no such restriction was ordered as part of their sentencing, and no subsequent offense and related conviction exists to directly add such punishment. (Fails [3] below)
"Three strikes laws" in every case where any of the preceding "strikes" occurred prior to the instantiation of the three strikes laws. (Fails [3] below)
The currently pending attempt to pardon the telecommunications companies for breaking the law with regards to wiretapping. (Versions have failed [4] below, keep watching as this effort continues to mutate)
Constitutionally speaking, the following is the definitive case law, Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), via Justice Chase:
In the case of sexual and violent offender's registries, these laws have at least once gone to the supreme court and have been upheld by the court with the preposterous excuse that such listing "is not punishment" but rather simply and exclusively represents "an interest of the state." In the case of gun laws, I am unaware of any challenge having made it to the supreme court.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Sentences end in 1 period, not 3. You also might want to look into paragraphs.
Sorry, Paul already beat you to the punch by a couple thousand years. This is one of the core concepts of Christianity, if you're interested, read Matthew 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount) and Romans 3-8 or so, where Paul explains the relationship between the OT Law and the NT's grace. Actually almost all of Romans is about that, those chapters more so though.
As a quick summary though, in the OT, the Jews related to God through the Law. In the NT Jesus fulfills the law, so Christians are freed to relate to God through Jesus. (Hebrews 9,10 explain this more) 9 of the 10 OT commandments are repeated by Jesus in the NT (keep the Sabbath being the exception) which is why Christians seem to follow them. None of the verses you cited were from Exodus 20, where the 10 commandments are found. The OT Law was much more than the 10 commandments and included stuff like "don't wear mix fiber clothes", "don't eat pigs or shellfish", "move out if your house gets moldy," and the stuff you mentioned. None of that stuff is repeated in the NT and there is no instruction or need to follow those rules. The rules in the NT basically boil down to "Love God" and "Love your neighbour." (Luke 10:25-37)
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view. They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...
No, but they shoot doctors at abortion clinics, oppose stem cell research, put on white cloaks and dunce's hats and arbitrarily kill black people.
They also think destroying the environment is a good idea because it will bring about the End of the World sooner, and hence Jesus. And they're stocking up on guns, bombs and bullets to go to Israel when Jesus comes down to force-feed lead to the "towel-heads" and any other non-believers that get in their way.
They also believe in the death penalty, and that gay people should be killed.
Stick Men
I've had a domain registered with Network Solutions for ten years. I haven't moved it mainly because the cost of moving it was not worth the money I would save by doing so. But now I have a reason to incur the cost (in time) of moving the registration, and here is the letter I just sent Netsol in response to their email asking how they could keep my business:
"I wanted to explain why I am transferring my domain from Network Solutions, after 10 years of hosting with you.
It has recently come to my attention that a domain registered and hosted with Network Solutions, fitnathemovie.com, was suspended by Network Solutions for AUP violations, despite the fact that at the time it was suspended (and prior to that) it contained only a "coming soon" notice. It is my understanding that this was done because the site was to promote a movie that offended some Muslims. I assume that Network Solutions' decision was that there would be a monetary cost (either through lost business or through fighting frivolous lawsuits defending the domain registration) if Network Solutions did not pull the domain. It is my considered position that freedom of speech, including the freedom to offend, is critical to any conception of Liberty, and must at all costs be defended. It is, of course, Network Solutions' right to feel differently and to act upon that feeling. And it is, of course, my right to cease doing business with Network Solutions, publicize the reasons for that, and encourage others to do the same. I will do all of these things, because it is my hope that Network Solutions will find a larger financial downside in acting against domains expressing an opinion that some find offensive than it finds in promoting free expression.
I can do nothing about the moral downside of an American organization blinking in the face of threats to free expression, except hope that Network Solutions' chains, in the words of Samuel Adams, rest lightly.
Sincerely,
Jeff Medcalf"
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
So... you're bitching about European Muslims seeking the same legal protections afforded to other religious and ethnic minorities because they're not being violent enough?
No.
It would be better for them to seize control in a bloody coup?
No.
You lecture about what is and is not illegal (in the United States), about when forcible action is and is not justified, but then follow it with an assertion that all forcible action is inherently wrong, and he's the hypocrite?
I made no such assertion. I'm slanted towards the USA because this is an American site and that is the default assumption by the people that run the site and those that read here. The right of Freedom of Speech is the same everywhere, at least by my understanding of "inalienable" and such. That a government infringes on that right does not mean that the right itself doesn't exist. If you think that's an odd position, perhaps you should look to places like China that declare their violations of "human rights" are legal, and the international community claiming that you can't just declare away Human Rights. I'm not the one that came up with such assertions, I'm just passing them along to you. And you obviously don't understand what "hypocricy" means. He claimed that he was against violence, then called for the government to enforce, through violence, that which he did not like. That is hypocricy. Do you understand my point, or should I explain it a little more slowly?
Tell me, AK Marc, where's your bloody insurrection to justify the pork sent to Alaska?
What does distribution of federal funds have to do with a bloody insurrection? Per area, Alaska receives the least of all states. Per capita, Alaska contributes the most to the federal government (and that number doesn't count just income tax, but all taxes and fees paid to the government for operations and people in Alaska). So, we pay the most and get the least. But when you focus on just income tax and nothing else, and only on per capita, rather than a mix of land area and population, like representation in Congress, then yes, you can make it look skewed. It's not like there is anyone up in Alaska that notices they pay the most per capita and receives the least per square mile, right?
Learn to love Alaska
- Muslim troops were using Srebrenica as a base to attack Serbs (including civilians). This was an important reason for the Serbs to attack Srebrenica. The Serbs might never have attacked if the Muslim troops had not abused the safe zone.
- The Muslim troops fled before the Serb attack, abandoning the civilian troops. The Dutch did not flee.
- Srebrenica is a valley between several hills that were under control by the Serbs. That means that it is completely undefendable from a military standpoint. The only possible deterrent was causing heavy Serb casualties using air support, which was not approved by the UN.
- It has always been considered sensible and honorable among career soldiers to negiotiate a surrender instead of fighting a hopeless battle. The Dutch did exactly that, trying to save as many people as possible.
- And most importantly: I have never heard an argument to explain how a suicide battle would have helped the civilians in Srebrenica, instead of angering the Serbs and possibly making them murder all civilians. In my experience, critics seem most interested in proclaiming their own moral superiority, claiming that they would have heroically fought to the death while sitting behing their computer at home.
PS. In the military medals are given for these reasons:- Valor, to recognize the heroism/bravery of the soldier/unit.
- Special qualifications, to recognize the ability of the soldier to handle certain weapons or tools effectively.
- Experience, to recognize that the soldier has been at a certain theater of war or had a certain experience (like the purple heart, for being wounded).
The Srebrenica medal was the latter kind and merely signifies that the soldiers served in Srebrenica.The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
"When Iran was getting close to having a stable secular government, it was wiped out by the US."
That was not an Islamic government. What Iran has now, is.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
You saw it on TV? Wow, it must be representative of the whole Middle East then.
MERI TV has an interesting variety of translated programs from the Middle East. Check out the "Favorite Clips" for a few eye openers.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
So apperently the Muslims in the Netherlands are willing to show it if they can see it upfront to make sure it contains no legally libel content.
I find it interesting that they are concerned about "libel".
Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued?
A SLAPP Against Freedom
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
BS.
Films and television shows are ALWAYS being made about these kooks.
For the last half-century.
Of late I haven't heard of any crazed Baptists sawing off heads of Canadian or European film crews.
Or American film producers either.
Try and a do an Ismlamic version of "Inherit the Wind" in the middle east.
Or better yet, LOL! - get Scorcese to re-do "The Last Temptation of Muhammed"
.
- aqk
F U
Whta colour is "dutch"?? LOL!
Why, it is ALL COLOURS!
And as I recall, they have a pretty good scouring cleanser too.
So just be careful with your comments!
But after viewing the little girl on the above website who "wants to grow up to be a princess..", alas I fear, she will grow to wear a bhurka, given the Dutch rate of reproduction.
.
- aqk
F U
Just a brief comment about the UN troops "protecting" Bosnians:
Same thing in Rwanda.
Same thing in Darfur.
And how much you want to bet that those UN "diplomats" currently arguing about Darfur went out tonight to some of New York's (or Geneva's) finest restaurants to dine at the taxpayer's expense, before resuming the "discussion" tomorrow?
Gee. Diplomacy and politics is a tough job, but SOMEBODY has to do it!
So stop complaining.
(speaking as a dissatisfied Canadian...)
.
- aqk
F U
My goodness!
What is all this controversy about Billy Wilders?
I LOVED his comedy "Some like it Hot"!
Is it because Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis dressed up as "girlies" that these Muslims are now upset?
I know there is a lot of homosexual innuendo in the movie, but -
How can they possibly threaten him with death? He died several years ago!
Please explain! I am totally confused!
.
- aqk
F U
Can you give examples of baptist Ministers pronouncing death sentences?
Sure, Southern Baptist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, and said Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment.
Can you name any baptist terrorist organizations?
If the KKK has Baptists (certainly not Catholics judging by its history), does it count?
You have a mistranslated source there. The arabic term is 'wali" which does not translate as friend. A mideast professor agrees with me here. The actual translation here would be "O believers, take not Jews and Christians as tribal protectors over you; they are tribal protectors of each other. Those of you who make them his tribal protector is one of them." - 5:54
As for the second, your source is completely mistranslated. Here's what mine says when I look up 9:123
"123. O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." It's referring to the polytheist Meccans who had laid siege to the city of Medina, not a blanket statement here. Murder is a clear sin according to the Quran.
The fact of the matter is, you could yank many of these things out of context or improperly interpret them through the language barrier. People have been doing it to Christianity and Judaism for years.
Wow, you're reading things into my post that just aren't there... Talk about tunnel vision!
Here's my result of hateful things he says after a very very short search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Position_on_Islam
In a multicultural society like the Netherlands, where 1 out of 16 is muslim, there is no place for people spouting such nonsense. There is no need or want for his bland populist statements. It's just unnecessary.
I'm all for openness. I'm for freedom of speech, democracy and peace. What did you think? The multicultural part of this society cannot be reached in a democratic way by infighting and hardlining. If Wilders wants to represent the people who elected him, why doesn't he do that? Are these people served by him creating problems where no problems need to be? By alienating muslims in the Netherlands? Muslims are part of the Netherlands. There is no changing it. What would the next Wilders want, abolish tulips? Fatwah on Friesland? We need people who can represent the Netherlands as a whole, not as a sum of its parts. Wilders is not that person.
How does making the Fitna movie represent the people who elected him? Does it make all their troubles go away? Does it help integrate muslim groups in our society? Does it create a better healthcare system? Solve problems with our education? As said, the man is one-issue. Yes, he got this far on that issue and it needs to be addressed. Making a movie is not the way.
The movie will most likely be seen as hateful. I can't say I blame the offended muslim groups much. In a world where it's necessary for people to communicate, he's closing up. In a world where people need to work together if they want to reach anything, he's being xenophobic.
I would suggest that in your reply, you refrain from offending me personally. This is the exact thing Wilders does; create issues when they just aren't there. It's also a very cheap way of arguing your point.
And this justifies the massacre and rape of women and children how?
whenever such a thing happens, someone comes up with the 'extreme case' and 'exception' excuses.
its ALWAYS exceptions. the millions rioting in middle east because of caricatures constitute exceptions, someone criticizing what islam does constitutes an exception because s/he is a "right wing extremist", muslim youth cutting throats of 3 christians in center of turkey because they were just guilty of publishing bible and handing them out to whomever asked for one are an exception. so it goes.
i live in turkey. EVEN here, a secular country which does most of its business with the west and lived with the west for the last 60 years, there is much hatred against west now. it wasnt so 15 years ago. for 15 years sources that are openly funded from middle east have been doing hatred propaganda against west, and u.s. to the extent that mainstream newspapers here are openly propagating hatred towards west, and even christians with or without a relevant cause every day.
dont tell me about problem. i live IN the problem.
Read radical news here
It's one guy, claiming to have made a movie which nobody but the single creator has seen (my biggest fear is for the production quality ;) ), and yet an ENTIRE F**KING NATION (and then some) is actively apologizing in advance.
What kind of bullshit is this?
I'm Dutch and don't agree with Wilders' statements either, but all the crap that seems to be happening right now, even before anybody has even SEEN the movie, only helps him to proof his statements. It wouldn't surprise me if there never was any movie, and he just claimed to have made one in order to demonstrate the state of fear that is currently destroying our own moral values such as freedom of speech.
If there really is such a thing as a "war on terrorrism", we've already lost it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The fact of the matter is, you could yank many of these things out of context or improperly interpret them through the language barrier. People have been doing it to Christianity and Judaism for years.
True. I stand corrected.
There's no place like
Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it Lars? Nowhere do I say that. How you could get that from what I wrote makes me wonder if communication with you is even possible.
The Old Testament was written, in large, by, for, and about Jews. There were no Christians at the time. They didn't exist until much, much later. In addition, what you see written there has a specific scope in application with regard to time and the people involved. It is not a standing order.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Exactly so. Freedom of speech isn't constrained to just "speech that doesn't offend anyone" or only "morally upstanding speech". And if you don't like what someone is saying -- you're free not to listen. That's the real beauty of freedom of speech.
Conversely, societies that restrict speech often REQUIRE that citizens listen to propaganda, and/or REQUIRE some level of indoctrination in "correct thought". We've to some degree reached that point, what with "sensitivity training" often being used as punishment should someone utter a politically incorrect phrase.
The entire concept of "hate crimes" and "hate speech" only serves to point out and exacerbate our differences, and to criminalize those who honestly feel or believe a certain way. Whether their feelings or beliefs are justified, morally reprehensible, or completely full of shit is not the issue.
And the big problem with defining certain topics as prohibited speech is that what's acceptable or reprehensible changes as societies mature... and change again as they become senile.
(Personally, I think our nanny state, with its concepts of "protecting" certain classes from hate speech, is an example of a society becoming senile.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Of course it isn't, the two religions made up different ones.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Basically its grim. What few people really get into, or really discuss, is what is really going on. You'll hear a lot about hate speech. The liberal left, and no end of NGOs, and media types will jump up and down about things, but only one side of things, and its a warped view. In a moment I will post an interesting thing.
Before then, the people who claim Islam is peaceful, and the usual political correct claptrap are as guilty of generalising as anyone whom attacks Islam. Its not easy to define or comment on because in the WEST, a great many Islamists have a different view to others. But there is plenty of Islamic jihad going on and you do not have to go very far to find it.
For those who talk about Christian or other crimes in terms of other religion, feel free to quite what you like, and remember, each time you do, in a more general sense, you don't get the lunatic response. If you make a joke about the Pope, you are less likely to have people burning effigies of you in the street, of have priests issuing dictates to have you killed.
There are ongoing efforts to contort, and restrict freedom when discussing Islam, and there is a significant and disturbing wish not to upset the nut jobs. If I was to replace Islam with mad christians, or Nazi's or any other grouping in the US, or in many places in the west, you would not see this response. I cannot talk about others, But I grew up with it being IMPORTANT and required to make fun of and question religion. I'm British, and I am sure you have heard of monty python. Nuff said.
Now, to cut to the chase, if you really are going to limit 'hate crimes', then the first port of call should be those coming from the Islamic quarter. With due regard to the leftists, liberals, media types, There seems to be no end of publishers, papers, TV programs fawning of that bastard Bin Laden's every word, no matter how gut wrenchingly disgusting or provocative it is, and yet anyone who counters that gets censored.
I appreciate Islamics may not like my point of view, but you either have an Umma, or you don't, and if you do, then people in MY civilisation have a right to ask what the hell its playing at, its basically how the Christian church was handled.
I think what I am trying to say, is we are granting Islam, and *some* of its followers things which are not our values, and are extremely contrary to our values.
Now, back to the hosting, I found this, which is reasonably interesting.
Network Solution's Easter Egg For Islamism
March 23, 2008
Network Solutions, the oldest domain name registration company, has marked Easter by censoring one of its customers for potentially being beastly to Islamists. We should thank them for exposing this vulnerability - then deep six them.
This story is hat tip LGF.
The censoree is the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who is planning to post a 15 minute video that apparently suggests Islamists are prone to oppression of their women and kids, and killing the rest of us.
Wilders' site is registered with and (I think) hosted by Network Solutions and you can see it here. As at 16:23 GMT, it says:
This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation.
That's a reminder that the Internet is a very fragile vehicle for free speech, since terrorists can infiltrate, bribe, or cow the people we pay to register and host our domains.
There's some safety in numbers - it's harder for them to shut down a multi-user service such as Wordpress or Blogspot. But not impossible.
Here's a good suggestion from an LGF commenter (comment #67):
If Wilders wants to distribute the film on the net, then he is going to have to pack it up and stick it up on hosting sites like rapidshare and torrent the thing and let pe
We`re all equal
Let's not forget that the same god then changed all rules again 700 years later, when he wrote the next book, an instant success.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Yikes. I would not have thought even such a small percentage of American Muslims would hold such hostile beliefs, if only because people are people everywhere, and most are at least tolerably "good" by reasonable standards of conduct.
One of the comments gets it right, tho: Muslims have to shoot their own mad dog. Until they're willing to do so, they will always be perceived as "the religion of hate", even tho a significant majority of Muslims are perfectly reasonable, peaceful people.
It took Christianity many centuries and a lot of bloodshed to figure this out. Islam is a younger, thus less-mature religion, and still in the throes of "US vs THEM", where keeping a mad dog to defend your camp still seems like a good idea.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
And Hitler was pro-Aryan. Your point? Seriously, just because someone's target of choice isn't Jews doesn't mean they're not fascist. In fact, if they've got any sense, it won't be - anti-Semitism really isn't looked on that kindly these days. Muslims are a much better target, due to the 9/11 attacks and to general media reporting which mean people are suspicious of them. Not only is being pro-Israeli not a contradiction of that, it fits nicely (in case you haven't heard, there's fairly widespread racism against Arabs there, including Israeli Arabs).
Sure, Southern Baptist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez and said Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment.
I despise Pat Robertson, but that's not the same thing. Robertson wasn't pronouncing a death sentence, he was making a statement about US government policy (and quickly apologized and retracted it).
If the KKK has Baptists (certainly not Catholics judging by its history), does it count?
No. The issue is not whether people who identify as some religion do bad things (every religion has those), but whether they are part of doctrine and accepted practice.
You're spouting a double standard. Pat Robertson said America should assasinate someone, essentially murder a leader, how is that any different? Pat Robertson never apologized, heck he never even did for saying that 9/11 was feminists and gays' fault (his apology at the time was an "I'm sorry you're fat" sort) If you have proof of his apology, I'd like to see it.
Terrorism is not a part of Islamic doctrine nor accepted practice. Scholars worldwide have condemned terrorism, and public opinion polls in the Muslim world show that support of killing civilians is even less than that of American polls. Three times as many Americans said that bombing civilians can ever be "justified". (source)
It's not that most Muslims are "evil" - they're simply regressive. Their social structure, their religious beliefs, and their moral code are, for the most part, where western society was 300 years ago, and due to the structure of their religion there's little chance that they will ever go through a "reformation" like the Christian faith did. However, it's the feedback generated by their social group which encourages "extremist" behaviour, and not any personal failing on the part of individuals.
Agreed, but we can certainly help them along, just like we have with various other cultures throughout history. The German people may have eradicated Nazism in the end, and the Japanese overthrown Shintoism, but neither of those events would have occurred without our
Even Christianity is not immune from this. Take a look at some of the Evangelical churches in the US - they're as nutty as any middle-eastern Imam. All it would take is for a few of their preachers to start advocating violent revolution, and you've got yourself a Christian Jihad. Now, granted that's not likely to happen, but history has shown over and over again that it doesn't take much to turn a popular and peaceful political or religious movement into a violent war-machine. I tend to keep a weary eye on anyone who professes fanatical belief, regardless of which faith they happen to follow.
Okay, "good" by reasonable standards of conduct within the context of the surrounding society. Happy now? :)
:)
As to that mad dog, well, sometimes it does help to inform the owner that if they don't shoot it, you will shoot it for them -- ***but then you've got to be willing to follow through***.
We DID follow through with WW2 Germany and Japan, and completely convinced both cultures that they had better never, EVER even *consider* keeping another mad dog, or we'd shoot their mad dog and them along with it. (Tho this has had some unintended consequences, such as repression of even the discussion of anything Nazi in modern Germany. I'm not sure that inverse extremism is progress, and may even eventually lead to another mad dog.)
But we're no longer willing to actually shoot that mad dog. Now we wave a stick and say Nice Doggie and hope it won't bite us, and keep backing away and letting it push us closer to the edge of the cliff, and someday we're going to fall off.
"All it would take is for a few of their preachers to start advocating violent revolution, and you've got yourself a Christian Jihad."
Well, maybe on a very small/localized scale. But as a whole, modern Christianity is middle-aged and fat and comfortable with its place in the world, not exactly the conditions that lead to a widespread jihad.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Israel is very much a religious state. True, you don't have to be religious to get citizenship (just Jewish), but it was founded on religious grounds using fairly violent and decidedly morally dubious techniques. The Jewish religious belief (Zionism) that a region that already had citizens who were not exactly happy about that sort of mass immigration - and even less happy about being kicked out of their homes - is theirs by right was important in its foundation and is important in now. For example, it's the reason for the whole (somewhat less than legal under international law) settler movement, and why so much effort is put into protecting settlers.
but you seem to be saying they should be the prime suspects until proven otherwise. That makes no sense to me.
I never said that. I said they are a large contributing factor that is too often given a free pass (mostly because people are afraid that any criticism of any religion will instantly label them as xenophobic fascists).
Well I'm sorry, but it just doesn't look to me like the problem in the Islamic world is Islam, it's poverty and rotten political systems.
Right except, at lest to me, Islam is a huge part of that "rotten political system", I'm not sure where you can draw the line between the two. Are you really saying that the system which dictates every aspect of political, public, and private life in those countries has no influence on their societies?
sic transit gloria mundi
And I would say...they aren't Christians.
They would say you're not, and produce the statements in the Bible that they interpret in defense of their position and as a refutation of yours. The problem is, you're both right - the Bible says basically anything you'd like it to say.
"Who's the real Christian" is a mug's game, but I see it's one you're not smart enough to avoid playing.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Well, although it's really odd for me to be arguing in favor of any religion, I think the New Testament sort of has that issue covered.
I think you're going to have a hard time making your argument in the face of Jesus, who makes it abundantly clear that the OT laws are still in full effect, and remain so until the second coming:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." - Matthew 5:18.
But because God's just a nice guy, he's giving everyone a great big do-over with some more relaxed rules.
That's clearly what the Hebrews' author thinks, but the problem is that Matthew (supposedly) relates the direct command of Jesus, and he kind of takes precedence. (Hey, I don't believe a word of it, but the direct quote from a fictional character overrides the inference of a fictional character's beliefs by a fictional narrator any day.)
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
However, your article states that evangelical leaders condemned the bombing
Not clear on the relevance, there. "Evangelical leaders" don't speak for, or define, all Christianity. (And, similarly, Muslim leaders regularly condemn suicide bombings by Muslims. That didn't seem to make much of a difference when the actions of a few Muslims was being used to tar that whole religion.)
Assuming he is a Christian solely on the basis of his target choice is weak at best.
Solely on his target of choice? Hardly. (Of course, that seemed to be completely appropriate reasoning when the religion of a suicide bomber was assumed to be Muslim simply because he was dressed like one and was a citizen of a predominantly Muslim country.)
Finally, 10 year old article?
Oh, is there a statute of limitations on religiously-motivated murder? I wasn't aware. (If you're contending that Christian-led violence is a thing of the past, many, many more recent examples could be provided. Presumably you won't volunteer to put yourself in such a stupid position, though.)
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
When the Muslims control the US
In addition to being a racist, you're delusional. You should worry less. The same legal strictures that protect me from your fundamentalist, anti-American religion will protect me from the (ooo! scary!) Muslims of that bent as well.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Besides, let's focus on the fact that Christian bombings are the exception, not the rule.
Oh, I'm very much aware that they're the exception, not the rule; just as, as a rule, Muslims do not commit bombings of any kind.
I'm simply pointing out the racist double-standard where a Christian extremist - with help from his community, make no mistake, they coordinate these murders on websites, share bomb-making knowledge, etc. - is concluded to be "acting as an individual" with no relationship to his Christianity, despite the fact that he would not have murdered aside from his religious belief, whereas essentially the same act by a Muslim - for political and not religious reasons - tars all Muslims by extension.
You're a racist. It's just that simple. No religion has the monopoly on violence, nor completely abstains from it; if any religion is to be considered to promote violence, they all must be. No exceptions.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Ummmm, right. Who is it that has popularized "suicide bombings"?
where a Christian extremist - with help from his community, make no mistake, they coordinate these murders on websites, share bomb-making knowledgePlease provide links to these websites and evidence or proof of this "community support". Recall, the article you cited doesn't even mention a religion, much less the culprit or the websites and community support he received. In fact, I contend it was a Muslim or atheist that committed the abortion clinic bombing -- please prove otherwise. For evidence of Muslim community support, here is a nice article about those peace loving Muslims (article title: "Poll finds some U.S. Muslim support for suicide attacks"):
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2244293620070522/
I guess the positive side is that only "some" support it.
You're a racist. It's just that simple.You do realize that "Muslim" is not a race, right? Even if I did hate all Muslims, which I don't, how exactly does that make me a racist? I would have to be racist against my own race. In reality, I couldn't care less about the so-called moderate Muslims (to me, "moderate" means they at least do not support suicide bombings). You, on the contrary, appear to harbor some serious hate and resentment toward Christians, which is seriously counter to your signature "I never have frustrations". I think you do have frustrations.
Also note that religion doesn't have the monopoly on violence -- atheism, in the form of communism, has killed more people than all religions combined over all time. You can find your own favorite article on that subject, but below is one that adds up atheist/communist murders to over 100 million. With China, Cuba, and Venezuela around, that number will continue to increase.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM/
Who is it that has popularized "suicide bombings"?
Based on your logic? "Individuals acting as individuals."
Please provide links to these websites and evidence or proof of this "community support".
Does the Federal Government count? Since it was the Federal courts who determined that the rights of Christians to set up online-based murder lists, and "mark off" individuals as they were assassinated, was inviolable.
Sorry, but I absolutely won't provide links to any murder-list website.
In fact, I contend it was a Muslim or atheist that committed the abortion clinic bombing
Naturally, since you're reflexive ideologue and bigot who continues to insist that your own religion is fundamentally different than all the others; that, indeed, it is the only religion that it is legitimate to define on the basis of the conduct of persons, thus ensuring by tautology that a Christian can never do anything bad, since to do something bad is to be un-Christian. (Never mind that this is not only a logical fallacy, but reasoning directly contradicted by the Bible.)
You, on the contrary, appear to harbor some serious hate and resentment toward Christians
Not in the least. I'm simply pointing out how absurd it is to claim that to be a Christian is to immunize oneself against the use of violence to one's ends, or that the rest of us have absolutely nothing to fear from organized, fundamentalist Christianity. If the whole of European history weren't sufficient to belie that claim, recent history more than proves it hollow.
atheism, in the form of communism
Communism is not, and has never been, a form of atheism. Additionally, the worst excesses and violence of China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union stemmed from a religious veneration of ideology and power, not from a commitment not to believe in something for no good evidentiary reason (the commitment of the atheist.)
Sorry, but it doesn't matter whether you believe in Jesus or in the State become God; to really fuck things up takes religion, religious belief, and faith. Atheism is blameless for the murders you refer to.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Sure, whatever you say, as they go to their Mosque for inspiration and bomb making materials.
Sorry, but I absolutely won't provide links to any murder-list website.Ooooo, clever. Your sense of decency is impeccable, or maybe it's because there is only one such site (the one your link referenced). Please, provide a link to the other sites -- we are all grownups here (and can even use words like "fuck" in our postings). BTW, there are anti-abortion Muslims, Jews, atheist, Buddhists, etc. Consider as well that the Earth Liberation Front is probably responsible for more terrorism than anti-abortion Christians. Since you are free to equate anti-abortion terrorism with Christianity, then I am free to equate ELF terrorism with atheism.
Naturally, since you're reflexive ideologue and bigot who continues to insist that your own religion is fundamentally different than all the othersGee, I know. I've been meaning to work on that whole reflexive ideologue thing, but it's just so easy. Odd how you seem to be in the same boat, though, eh?
how absurd it is to claim that to be a Christian is to immunize oneself against the use of violence to one's ends, or that the rest of us have absolutely nothing to fear from organized, fundamentalist ChristianityWho is immunizing themselves, here? I really think we are having two different conversations. When exactly did I say violence is OK if you are Christian? For the record, it isn't. My initial point was that no Christian leader supports the type of violence in the article you cited. Please provide a single quote from a reputable Christian leader or a poll of Christians that says otherwise, and I will shut up. This should not require any murder-list web sites operated by Christians. But, then, those are so hard to avoid these days aren't they?
Communism is not, and has never been, a form of atheism... Atheism is blameless for the murders you refer to.We can play word games all day, but you cannot avoid the simple fact that Communist Soviet Union practiced and Communist China currently practices State Atheism. Whether Stalin was an atheist (there is no evidence to the contrary) is immaterial -- he murdered millions of people in the enforcement of atheism. To simplify it for you, he killed people because they had religion. Whether communists were "pure" atheists is also inconsequential -- they killed to enforce atheism and were most likely atheists themselves. Maybe they just hated religion, who gives a fuck? It was murder in the name of atheism. From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism, especially note the term "militant":
Here is a nice line from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism, especially note the use of the term "violent":
Sure, whatever you say, as they go to their Mosque for inspiration and bomb making materials.
And some Christians coordinate their attacks in church and in Bible study. Again, it's the double standard that's hanging you, here. Why do Muslims murderers become the face of Islam for you, but Christian murderers are just rogue bad guys who have nothing to do with the religion?
Simple - because you're a Christian, and you hate and fear Muslims. Obviously.
Please, provide a link to the other sites
Again, no. I absolutely won't be a party to driving traffic, even if its just one person, to websites that advocate murder. That the US courts were satisfied that such sites exist is more than enough evidence for any reasonable person.
Consider as well that the Earth Liberation Front is probably responsible for more terrorism than anti-abortion Christians.
Sure, but I don't see the relevance. Sounds like you're arguing a strawman. (The ELF, incidentally, are pantheists.)
If you want to put yourself in the ridiculous position of asserting that Christians aren't responsible for all that much terrorism - like there's an acceptable amount of terror bombings that it's ok to do - then you're proving my point for me.
When exactly did I say violence is OK if you are Christian?
I never said that you did, but now that you bring it up - right here in this very post, where you attempted to excuse Christian terrorists because they're not as bad as ELF. It's abundantly obvious that you've found yourself completely rebutted by the facts, so now you're trying to play the "relative violence" game, where there's a level of violence that is acceptable and can't be criticized, and that level, coincidentally, is the level of violence Christians are responsible for.
My initial point was that no Christian leader supports the type of violence in the article you cited.
Except, of course, for the leaders of these fundamentalist organizations that sponsor and promote this kind of terror. But, of course, they don't count, for reasons you haven't explained.
Please provide a single quote from a reputable Christian leader
Oh, so now "reputable" is the basis on which you'll move the goalposts? Who, precisely, determines which leaders are "reputable" and which are not? And how is "reputability" determined for Muslims?
We can play word games all day, but you cannot avoid the simple fact that Communist Soviet Union practiced and Communist China currently practices State Atheism.
I can and do assert, quite reasonably, that a state that venerates the icons of leaders as though they were the real thing, to the extent that the military parades in front of a painting rather than in front of the leader; a state where people believe the leaders have the supernatural power to monitor all individuals through impossible "reverse transmissions" through radios and televisions; a state summed up in the motto "God is the state; the state is God" - is most definitely not atheist. Sure, they do not practice your religion. But to assert that they are without religion altogether is lunacy belied by the historical record.
Whether Stalin was an atheist (there is no evidence to the contrary)
Except, of course, for his attendance at a seminary. How many atheists do you know in seminary?
It was murder in the name of atheism.
By any reasonable definition, it was murder in the name of religion - the religion of communist statism. To deify the power of the state, as those governments did, is wholly inconsistent with the definition of atheism.
Nonetheless, this is a red herring you're pursuing because you've fundamentally lost the debate on the facts.
Here is a nice line from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism,
Which, no doubt, you added yourself.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Baloney.
If you actually read his blog regularly, he's defended Israel on both academic and political terms. You're citing a right-wing source who disagreed with his Palestinian stance and sought to have him smeared. I find Professor Cole to be a pretty fair guy. I've disagreed with him on things like abortion, but not on the basis you cited.
As you pointed out it's hard to draw the line between politics and religion in some predominantly Islamic countries. When religion and politics get mixed I find it unlikely that the true character of the religion will emerge unscathed.
Are there barbaric passages in the Qu'ran? Yes. Just as there are in the bible. So why has Islam arrived at this point? Apart from the capricious whims of history, one reason totalitarianism gravitates toward Islam is the decentralized nature of the religion.
There is no centralized authority structure in Islam to pronounce upon the actions of radicals. The vast majority of Imams in the world would disavow the "violence" interpretation of jihad in the modern world, but there is no universally recognized body that could throw violent Islamists out of the religion for attempting to speak in it's name.
If Islam as a religion has a problem, it is that.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
And some Christians coordinate their attacks in church and in Bible study.
Unsubstantiated claim, no news stories, no evidence, just bigoted nonsense.
Simple - because you're a Christian, and you hate and fear Muslims. Obviously.
Gross generalization and bigoted nonsense, consequently you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing -- painting all people of a faith with the same brush.
The ELF, incidentally, are pantheists.
Gross generalization and bigoted nonsense.
right here in this very post, where you attempted to excuse Christian terrorists because they're not as bad as ELF. It's abundantly obvious that you've found yourself completely rebutted by the facts, so now you're trying to play the "relative violence" game, where there's a level of violence that is acceptable and can't be criticized, and that level, coincidentally, is the level of violence Christians are responsible for.
Incidentally, your original post did just what you are accusing me of doing. In case you've forgotten, you posted an article about an abortion clinic bombing, supposedly carried out by an evangelical. You posted this article to a discussion about Muslim violence.
Oh, so now "reputable" is the basis on which you'll move the goalposts? Who, precisely, determines which leaders are "reputable" and which are not? And how is "reputability" determined for Muslims?
Let's define reputable as those that lead Muslim nations or large groups of Muslim believers. So, how about the leaders of Iran? The "leaders" of Palestine. The Taliban. Hell, even Osama bin Laden is revered by many Muslims. I personally saw a panel of four U.S. Muslim leaders on CNN a few days after the 9/11 attacks and they all justified the attacks, blaming U.S. foreign policy. I'm assuming if they are the leaders of a Muslim nation (that U.S. Democrats visit, by the way) or if they are on CNN that they would be reputable by most measures.
I can and do assert, quite reasonably, that a state that venerates the icons of leaders as though they were the real thing, to the extent that the military parades in front of a painting rather than in front of the leader
This is a moronic argument and is commonly employed by atheists to the point that the term "atheist/atheism" loses almost all meaning. By this argument, if you venerate anything (including your grandmother, sports heroes, movie stars, the Internet), you are no longer an atheist. If atheists truly venerate nothing and believe in nothing, how sad a life they must have. If you insist on defining "atheism" so narrowly, let's drop the use of the term and just acknowledge the people in question have "atheist tendencies".
Besides, your stupid example involves communist leaders who are human, even in death, and the people doing the venerating know they are human. There is no God element here, which is central to the other God based religions being discussed here. Never mind the fact that the leaders of the communist movement are not the ones marching in front of a painting -- they are leading, they are atheists, and they are the true murders in communist countries, since they order the murder of individuals based on nothing other than their religious beliefs.
Except, of course, for his attendance at a seminary. How many atheists do you know in seminary?
I know one -- Joseph Stalin. Never mind the fact that he wasn't in the seminary while leading a communist nation. Consider that there would be far fewer atheists if folks aren't allowed to change their beliefs (or disbeliefs, whichever it may be). He was at the seminary in his youth, probably forced to go. Here is a snippet from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin (probably entered by me):
During his
Not at all. I'm hardly saying that all Christians are terrorists, merely that it's a ludicrous and bigoted claim to assert that none of them are.
There is a phenomenon of Christian terror. The bombings in Belfast and London during the 80's and 90's testify to that. (Oh, you must have thought all that was the fault of Irish Muslims.)
Gross generalization
Not at all. They venerate the spirit of the Earth. That's pantheism, not atheism.
Incidentally, your original post did just what you are accusing me of doing. In case you've forgotten, you posted an article about an abortion clinic bombing, supposedly carried out by an evangelical.
That's not what I've accused you of doing, though. These responses of yours become increasingly incoherent.
Let's define reputable as those that lead Muslim nations or large groups of Muslim believers.
How large? Does CAIR count? Does the Muslim American Society? The truth is that, worldwide, Muslims denounced the attacks. American political enemies, of course, rejoiced, but why wouldn't they?
I personally saw a panel of four U.S. Muslim leaders on CNN a few days after the 9/11 attacks and they all justified the attacks
Yeah, I remember that, too. I remember when one of them said:
Oh, wait. That was no Muslim leader; that was Jerry Falwell, one of America's foremost Christian leaders. Oh, but I guess he doesn't count as "reputable", for some reason, despite his close ties to American politicians including the President, for whom he's served as a religious adviser.
By this argument, if you venerate anything (including your grandmother, sports heroes, movie stars, the Internet), you are no longer an atheist.
If you venerate something to the extent that you ascribe supernatural powers to even the image of that thing - that is, you deify something - then yes, you've ceased to be an atheist. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Not just the Christian god, not just the popular gods, but any gods at all.
If you insist on defining "atheism" so narrowly, let's drop the use of the term and just acknowledge the people in question have "atheist tendencies".
The people in question don't have "atheist tendencies", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. The people in question clearly have religious tendencies, and that's my whole point. The abhorrent atrocities you refer to are the result of religious-based thinking, and that's true whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, or religious adherence to communist statism. Contrary to your assertion, there's no religion in the world you can be a part of where its members are completely non-violent, where at least some of them won't be willing to kill for those beliefs. It's in Islam, as you recognize; it's in Christianity, which you refuse to see. And some atheists are murderers too, of course, but atheism lacks the power to convince others to murder. For that you need religion.
I know one -- Joseph Stalin.
And you think he turned his back on those lessons? To the contrary - his amazing power to control an entire nation on the basis of a faulty political ideology is clearly evidence that the people of the Soviet Uni
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
Agreed, that's always a problem, but it's still better than leaving the original "mad dog" alive. Also, the kind of speech-repression we see in Germany is actually pretty normal for most of the world - the EU as a whole has "anti-hate-speech" laws, as does Canada, and Australia. The US is pretty much the only nation in the world which recognizes freedom of speech as an unlimited right (with the exception of libel and public mischief) so blaming Germany's attitude against Nazi rhetoric on what we did after WW2 isn't exactly fair.
Yep. I've always liked the phrase "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' while reaching for a bigger stick". Unfortunately, too many westerners think that diplomacy IS the stick. Fostering such delusions is a very good way to get mauled.
Definitely. I know that a "Christian Jihad" isn't likely, I was just saying that it wouldn't take much for it to happen. Considering the attitude that most American Christians have toward Atheists, I think I'm justifiably paranoid