Slashdot Mirror


LittleBigPlanet Delayed Due To Qur'an-Sampling Audio

Several readers have pointed out that Sony's much-awaited LittleBigPlanet has hit a snag and will be delayed worldwide. The delay came after it was discovered that a song licensed for use in the soundtrack contained audio samples from the Qur'an. All advanced copies sent to retailers for the target release of October 21 in North America, 22 in PAL territories, and 24 in the UK and Ireland, have been recalled. "The post, by user 'Solid08', indicates of the specific references in the composition: 'In the 18th second: "kollo nafsin tha'iqatol mawt", literally: "Every soul shall have the taste of death' ... almost immediately after, in the 27th second: "kollo man alaiha fan", literally: "All that is on earth will perish."'"

995 comments

  1. Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A religion of peace...

    1. Re:Peace by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another look at the meaning is clearly only stating the obvious: Just as every life has a beginning it also too must have an end. It does not say that everyone must perish in a cruel, agonizing, bloody death. Even the bible has some pretty dark lines surpassing this one.

    2. Re:Peace by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmm... do religions of peace say things like:

      (Sura 2:191-193) "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

      (Sura 8:12) "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."

      (Sura 8:59-60) "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

      (Sura 9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and fought jihad with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant."

      (Sura 9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

      (Sura 9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them"

      (Sura 9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and fight jihad with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."

      Yeah. I'm sure they were worried about "offending" people whose idea of responding is to kill anyone who "offends" them. Like, say, Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie.

      Sad day to see this happen.

    3. Re:Peace by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, that line "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" scares the hell out of corporate executives. "Blessed are the peacemakers" give Republicans the willies, and "Blessed are the pure at heart" terrorizes the Democrats.

    4. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lo! they cannot escape.

      I read that as "LOL, they cannot escape." Never thought I'd do a double-take on the Qur'an.

    5. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      and for everyone else, there's the old testament

    6. Re:Peace by ciderVisor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Lo! they cannot escape.

      I misread that as "Lol".

      4114h00 4kH bR !!!

      --
      Squirrel!
    7. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the quran is quite specific in which souls need to have a cruel, agonizing and bloody death. It also clearly specifies how they're to be administered : every muslim is to "fight, kill and die" as a slave of allah until there isn't a single non-muslim left.

      And if you want demonstrations, you could read about the religious massacres in the description of the "prophet's" life.

      It's even got paedophilia. Somehow I don't think it's very politically correct, all these inconvenient truths.

    8. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)

      "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)

      "The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)

      "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

      "You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53)

      "The Lord said to Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their horses.' " (Exceedingly cruel.) (Joshua 11:6)

      "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." (Judges 21:10-12)

      "This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)

      "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

      "A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work!
      A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)

    9. Re:Peace by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but crazy Islamo-nutballs don't come blow up your building when you quote the Bible.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re:Peace by Etrias · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, come on. You've read the Old Testament, right? There's sections there are pretty violent as well, just as unforgiving. I'm not going to find these quotes for you because I don't have the time now. I don't have them conveniently wrapped together in a chain email which I'm guessing you pulled this from.

      +1 for selective quotes +5 for unnecessary incendiary quoting -5 questionable modding

    11. Re:Peace by Kandenshi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dunno, seems like a pretty odd thing for a peaceful religion to say sure. Of course, cherry picking to find offensive things in the Quar'an isn't any better than quote mining the Bible. I think that there should be more of a push to get people to actually read their religious texts, in my extremely informal sampling of my friends/classmates/housemates/etc it seems that there's very little of that amongst those who describe themselves as belonging to a certain religion.

      Proverbs 20:30 Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.
      - Hence, Jesus was *really* pure when he finally got crucified? And bullies in schools are just trying to make their victims more godly?

      Deuteronomy 7:1 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. 2 Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
      - Peaceful indeed.

      Leviticus 21:18 For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he that hath a flat nose, of anything superfluous.
      - Shun those with physical abnormalities. And yet, Jesus supposedly hung around with the blind, lepers, clubfooted people all the friggen time?

      Ephesians 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the saviour of the body.
      1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
      - That's right. Get back in the kitchen! Get back to submitting and quit telling me to take out the garbage.

      Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your GOD.
      Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
      - Pants are bad but rape is OK as long as you pay for it and marry her.

      Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
      - Jesus explaining what he wants people to do when he returns.

      Leviticus 25:45 Moveover the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession.
      Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.
      Isaiah 13:15-16 Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered, and their wives ravished.
      - "Stab all those people over there, bash the head's of their babies in against a rock, then rape their women(especially the young cute virgins)." Sounds more like the order of a corrupt general than an omnibenevolent diety.

      Leviticus 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness, he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood. And both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
      - Because we all know that menstrual blood is icky and if people fuck when she's on the rag they should be killed.

      Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his slave, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished

    12. Re:Peace by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Yes, quoting random verses with no context is certainly enough to convince anyone of your point! It's not like, you know, taking passages out of context from the Christian bible could ever make that religion appear to condemn adulterers to death by stoning, demand that an enemy army be mutilated, encourage slavery, encourage incest...

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    13. Re:Peace by HanClinto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Part of the trouble is that the verses you're referencing in the Old Testament were from a specific war -- "Go and kill the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead" or "Destroy the Amalekites" -- particular people who they were fighting at the time. Unlike the Qu'ran, the Old Testament doesn't say that these instructions to wage war are standing orders.

    14. Re:Peace by wanderingknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's even got paedophilia.

      The Bible's got incest, rape, mass-murder (and it advocates some mass-murders, too), and all sort of cruelties that were committed by both Jews and Christians--such as any other people in the history of humanity.

      How 'bout you read the old testament for a change?

    15. Re:Peace by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Oh, come on. You've read the Old Testament, right?"

      Sure, but nowadays only a tiny few people actually consider that old superstitious nonsense much more than a hobby. Even the Christian fanatics in the US rarely go very far. Note that Christian superstition also has a New Testament...The Quran is still taken seriously, to which current events will attest.

      Why should we who know better respect religion? Religion does not respect us.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    16. Re:Peace by geekoid · · Score: 0

      logical fallacy.

      You are assuming the poster is giving a free ride to the bible.
      The Bible is a vile book of hate as well, but the topic at hand is Muslims and the fact that they must kill to adhere to the tenets of their religion.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, that is all the book talks about? Seems like a short book then.

      By the way, taking short texts out of context from a huge book is not a very good way of forming arguments. I have many Muslim friends and none of them has yet to kill anyone offending them (I think I would be dead at least couple of times by now if that wasn't the case).

    18. Re:Peace by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well done. You just pointed out a different religious text that tells it's followers to kill and teaches hate. That in no way it a counter argument to the posters point.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:Peace by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      This (the lyrics) has nothing to do with any implicit implication to violence. Sony's recall has everything to do with Muslim Fundamentalism however.

      From the article:

      We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending.

      Speaking of violence, a death sentence could however be decreed, as what happened to Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie.

      How much businesses and governments and people in general will let religion and religious people control their lives is fascinating and unfortunate.

    20. Re:Peace by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      You missed Deuteronomy 20. Genocide is always a crowd-pleaser.

    21. Re:Peace by lgw · · Score: 1, Troll

      The Bible in places advocates mass murder and torture. The history of Christianity is full of mass murder and torture in the name of God.

      The Koran in places advocates mass murder of the infidel. Recent history speaks for itself.

      What was your point exactly?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Obviously, however this is part of that religion, and the little fact that this religion is worse than nazism ... oh well "freedom of religion" is the highest good, right ? Well then you dress up killing others as a religion and you get at it !

      But it gets worse : from its very, very beginning islam ("repression" literally) was already killing like this.

      Google "asma bint marwan". Read about the "prophet" (of peace ?) sending out murderers in the night killing a mother in her tent, who fell asleep with her child on her chest. Needless to say, the child didn't survive islam's killer either.

      You remember the story of Jesus and the woman that got brought before him, convicted to death because some men thought she had cheated, but they were not sure about killing her. Well "repression" (islam) has the same story :

      Obviously they stoned the woman to death, and when one of the muslims regretted his actions, stood with her and shielded her with his body, they stoned him to death too

      Don't forget he people. You are clearly "opressing people" if you don't let them do this to people. If things like this makes you think ill about islam, clearly you're a racist :

      After all : they're "all the same" these religions. "It's all the same" ... except noone can ever seem to be able to point to an instance when Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Joseph Smith, of even L.Ron Hubbard sending out murderers to advance their religion.

      And now, for everyone's enjoyment. Islam killed a billion people in a thousand years. Communism killed a hundred million in less than 100 years.

      So what do "progressives" do ? They progress ... they combine the two. Communism, now in limited edition with extra prophets ... because not enough people died last time !

    23. Re:Peace by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's an interesting difference, though, isn't it? Islamic fundamentalists trying to get rid of public displays of pictures of Mohammed, trying to eliminate people reciting the Quran in products, and so on, and meanwhile, Christian fundamentalists are insisting on public displays of pictures of Jesus, trying to get readings from the bible everywhere, and so on.

      It's just a different kind of crazy.

      --
      Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?
    24. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How much businesses and governments and people in general will let religion and religious people control their lives is fascinating and unfortunate." Yep, if they aren't pandering to one religion, they're taking our rights away to protect us from another.

    25. Re:Peace by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the bit about the moneylenders in the temple frightens both the capitalists AND the televangelists. That's right, you rich greedy bastards, when Jesus comes back, he's totally going medieval on all your asses.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    26. Re:Peace by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      No, but you get put in prison for owning one in even some "moderate" Muslim countries.

    27. Re:Peace by Tiber · · Score: 2, Funny

      No no no. "Blessed are the peacemakers" is a sure sign that God wants us to have nukes.

    28. Re:Peace by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The more enthusiastic priests and ministers quite like these ones though:

      "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

      and

      "If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... stone them with stones, till they die."

    29. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cept that people use bible phrases in shit all the time and no one gives a shit because the majority of christians arent as completely screwed up as Muslims

    30. Re:Peace by wanderingknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That people in Christian countries who usually mention Muslims as being a bunch of religious fanatics are usually, you know, Christians.

      Either way, I believe you're misguided if you believe the only reason why the so-called terrorism exists is because the Qu'ran advocates mass murder of infidels.

      Unfortunately for American media and the US government, reality is much more complex than that.

    31. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't read the bible? Didn't you?

    32. Re:Peace by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 1

      My favourite bit is when God sends she-bears to kill 42 children because they called Elisha "bald-head".

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
    33. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really ? In islam it is the prophet that commits paedophilic rape (forces a 9 year old girl to have sex with him).

      http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.236

      Please point out in the bible where Jesus rapes a 9-year old girl "because God tells him to" ... After all I've shown you the equivalent in islam ("repression" in English).

      Please show me the christian states where rape of minor girls is STILL practiced because limiting such would be "illegal". Please show me the christians demanding the right to rape underage girls, please show me christians murdering their children because they try to run from these marriages ...

      After all "it's all the same", isn't it ? Let's see it.

    34. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All quotes from the Bible reference specific commands to the Israelites at a specific time in their history. Yes, they are pretty barbaric. However, none of them are commands for the Christians or Jews of today. If I'm not mistaken. the quotes from the Qur'an are not specific commands for specific individuals at a specific time, but commands for all Muslims, all the time.

    35. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

    36. Re:Peace by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

      eh, from what I saw the GP was saying that Islam can't be a religion of peace because the Qur'an says icky things like that. My point is that sure it can, *if* people ignored most of what it says(like people ignore most of what the Bible says).

      I'm not much of a fan of religion in general. Tend to think it's a horrible institution. However I am also of the opinion that Islam is a particularly terrible religion. It's not because the book says to go out and do terrible things though(as the GP would suggest by his post) as many other religions also say similar things. It's to do with other factors, such as the way the church is organized, and a few specific articles of faith in Islam(eg: glorifying martyrdom). There have been suicide bombers in a large variety of faiths, but some of them seem somewhat more resistant to the idea than others. Buddhism for instance is fairly peaceful. In WW2 there were indeed Buddhists willing to blow themselves up to kill the enemy, but by and large the members of that particular religion don't think that strapping some explosives to themselves is the best way to get what they want.

    37. Re:Peace by chromatic · · Score: 1

      Shun those with physical abnormalities. And yet, Jesus supposedly hung around with the blind, lepers, clubfooted people all the friggen time?

      A thoughtful theologian might say that you've almost described the most important difference between the New and Old Testaments in two sentences.

    38. Re:Peace by grub · · Score: 1, Insightful


      EvilBible.com has many nice links. Your children are disobedient? KILL THEM! That's right, god tells you to right in the book. Many, many more examples of just how loving and caring that god really is.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    39. Re:Peace by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      These lines are taken out of context. You can of course do the same thing with the Bible, and it's not any harder.

      Take a line from, say, the bit on Sodom and remove the subject and you'll go from something like "In Sodom, everyone will perish horribly," to "Everyone will perish horribly."

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    40. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Isaiah 13:15-16 Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered, and their wives ravished.
              - "Stab all those people over there, bash the head's of their babies in against a rock, then rape their women(especially the young cute virgins)." Sounds more like the order of a corrupt general than an omnibenevolent diety.

      Ah context:

      Isaiah 13:17 Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them [Babylon],
      who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold.

      It helps to read things that way. At least in this text, what's happening is not, God commanding Israel to kill/rape, but that another culture is being raised up, Medes (re: evil) and will destroy Babylon. So whether you say God is using Medes to destroy Babylon, or that this will transpire either way God is not telling someone as a commandment to kill/rape. Judgment is coming to Babylon in otherwords. Is this not how Babylon acted when destroying cultures? But oh noes we can't have that. God is snuggly, he doesn't judge people...

      But don't let me rain on your parade by forcing you study something instead of make blanket statements.

      Lastly no one says Christian is the religion of peace. Though we have at least killed a lot less people over the years that Muslims. Especially if you narrow it down to Protestantism. But Athiests (i.e. Russia, China) sure have killed a lot without any religious text.

    41. Re:Peace by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Informative

      This fact is often understated. The average Muslim is just about as religious as the average Christian. That being said we don't see rioting in the streets (all that often) because of religious differences. It's usually the leadership (and the Fundamentalist versions of Brown Shirts) that spur things on.

    42. Re:Peace by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Oh no! We must kill them all before they can kill us all. Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure... /sarcasm
      But this begs for the question: what could we do to make them not want to kill us, non-muslims? If we all allowed them to live like americans, soon everyone would be more lazy. Only problem is that they try to actually fight the american way of life.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    43. Re:Peace by lgw · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're clearly new here if you the that people on *Slashdot* are usually, you know, Christians. And the advocacy of terrorism by certain improtant Islamic thought leaders *certainly isn't fucking helping*.

      Stop grinding your local political axe for a moment. Twisting any possible issue to point out that GWB is stupid realy isn't insightful, you know?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    44. Re:Peace by grub · · Score: 1

      whoops, clicked Submit too fast. From that site (hyperlinks not pasted over):

      It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said "Thou shall not kill". For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of "all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses" (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

      The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    45. Re:Peace by delong · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Christian fundamentalists are insisting on public displays of pictures of Jesus, trying to get readings from the bible everywhere, and so on

      You really can't see the difference? Christians aren't trying to compel others to do what they otherwise would not. Nobody is trying to force public displays of pictures of Jesus; they are trying to prevent others from stopping the free display of such icons. In all the establishment clause cases, the public display was tradition and voluntary and were sued to prevent the voluntary display. In most of these cases, the community supported the display.

      In contrast, Muslims are attempting to compel the public squelching of public and private practice and speech in compliance with their own religious code. For instance, in Britain muslims objected to the display of Piglet, the Winnie the Poo character, at a public office because it caused offense. The Muhammed cartoons are also an obvious example of oppression of private, voluntary speech and conduct.

      There's a huge difference. As a matter of fact, the ACLU and Muslim fanatics have more in common than Christians and Muslims. And as a disclaimer, I was a law clerk for the ACLU, so don't try to tag me with that.

    46. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
              - Jesus explaining what he wants people to do when he returns."

      WTF? Either you dont even bother actually reading was is written or youre lying.

      From bible.com; Luke 19:1-19:27

      The Parable of the Ten Minas

              11As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because(L) they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12He said therefore, (M) "A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13Calling(N) ten of his servants,[a] he gave them ten minas,[b] and said to them, 'Engage in business(O) until I come.' 14But(P) his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.' 15When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16The first came before him, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.' 17And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant![c] Because you have been(Q) faithful in a very little,(R) you shall have authority over ten cities.' 18And the second came, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made five minas.' 19And he said to him, 'And you are to be over five cities.' 20Then another came, saying, 'Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in(S) a handkerchief; 21for I was afraid of you, because you are(T) a severe man. You take(U) what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' 22He said to him,(V) 'I will condemn you with your own words,(W) you wicked servant! You knew that I was(X) a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?' 24And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.' 25And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!' 26'I tell you that(Y) to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27But(Z) as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and(AA) slaughter them before me.'"

    47. Re:Peace by M1rth · · Score: 1

      Any time someone points out flaws within Islam, some /b/tard has to come along and start shitting over other religions. It's a standard debate tactic - try to distract and change the subject because what you're trying to defend is indefensible.

      And yes, it's entirely possible for multiple religions to be wrong. However, there's only one major religion today that still tells its followers to stone people, cut their heads off, and kill them for being "unbelievers."

      --
      If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
    48. Re:Peace by CaptSaltyJack · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lo! they cannot escape.

      I misread that as "Lol". 4114h00 4kH bR !!!

      No, you're right. It does say "Lol". Full excerpt:

      "and let not n00bs who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip ALLAH'S PURPOSE!!!!1 lol they cannot escape. make ready for them all u can of armed force and of...OMG PONIES!!! rofl. so um..that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and u can haz victory."

    49. Re:Peace by randyest · · Score: 1

      How does that in any way dispute the fact that Islam's text is not one of a "religion of peace?" So Christianity isn't either -- so they're both horrible. And?

      --
      everything in moderation
    50. Re:Peace by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand that, too... but still, claiming that the Islam is the sole cause for terrorism is terribly shortsighted.

    51. Re:Peace by wanderingknight · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not only leadership. The situation in Islam countries is often of major poverty, and there are several reasons for that--ONE of them being leadership. International context and the original social framework are just as, if not more important (these latter often serve as a reason to explain the appearance of "evil" leaders).

    52. Re:Peace by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      The point is that posts like Moryath's are designed with one single goal in mind: to demonstrate that Islam is violent by nature, and antagonistic to Christianity.

      Posting excerpts from the bible with similar injunctions demonstrates that Christianity is similar to Islam in that respect, and that it therefore does not follow that all Muslims are violent extremists. Because if that were true, all Christians would be violent extremists.

      It's the old beam-in-the-eye approach. Don't bitch about someone else's holy texts if yours aren't that clean either.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    53. Re:Peace by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

      When I read that parable, I hear Jesus explaining that he(the nobleman) is soon going to be leaving. When he returns, he will check up on what we've done with our time. Those who have done as he commanded will be rewarded, and those who question his authority will be punished.
      'Take all his stuff, give it to the good and godly individuals who did as I command. And as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and(AA) slaughter them before me.'

      How should I be reading that?

    54. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really ? Why don't you tell us what reality is ? Because all these media seem to get the ball all wrong (well everybody certainly seems to agree all these facts are totally misguiding everyone)

      The fact that the quran openly calls for genocide, and that these calls have been answered by muslims during their entire history, certainly doesn't help matters. But you're right. Most, if not 99% of islamic terror is muslims killing muslims for the most despicable of reasons, few having anything to do with religion. Money, fame, anger and especially shame cause muslims to murder eachother, but taking away the murder excuse that is islam would do no harm whatsoever.

      That said, of course you're right every ten years or so there is a terrorist attack that isn't muslims killing for islam. Every now and then some communists kill around a bit. It's been a while though.

      http://thereligionofpeace.com/

      This week ONLY terrorist attacks. Since monday muslims murdered 70 people "for allah". Strangely enough there weren't any non-muslim terrorist attacks this week. Anyway here's the list :
      10/16/2008 Pakistan Swat 5 15 A Fedayeen suicide car bomber rams into a police station, killing five Pakistanis.
      10/15/2008 Iraq Karbala 22 0 A mass grave is discovered containing the bodies of twenty-two abducted shepherds
      10/15/2008 Iraq Baghdad 7 18 A Mujahideen bomb blast and separate mortar attack on a mosque leave seven civilians dead.
      10/15/2008 Afghanistan Lashkar Gah 6 0 Six local police are taken out in a brutal Taliban ambush on their checkpoint.
      10/15/2008 Pakistan Swat 2 0 The Taliban enter a home and murder a husband and wife.
      10/15/2008 Pakistan Swat 3 0 Three people, including two brothers, are killed in two Jihad shooting attacks.
      10/14/2008 Afghanistan Kandahar 1 0 Religious extremists assassinate a government official who aids war widows.
      10/14/2008 Afghanistan Uruzgan 9 6 Two children are among nine civilians murdered when Taliban bombers target a minibus.
      10/14/2008 Philippines North Cotabato 1 0 Moro Islamists attack a Christian village, killing one civilian and driving many families from their homes.
      10/14/2008 Pakistan Kabal 1 0 Sunni extremists abduct, torture and behead a local soldier.
      10/14/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 Islamists murder the driver of an aid agency.
      10/14/2008 India Poonch 2 0 Mujahideen kill two local soldiers in separate ambushes.
      10/13/2008 Afghanistan Ghazni 6 2 Religious extremists take out six civilians with a roadside blast.
      10/13/2008 Pakistan Darra Adam Khel 1 4 A sudden Sunni rocket attack leaves a local security staff member dead.
      10/13/2008 Somalia Mogadishu 2 23 Two African Union mission members are killed when Muslim militia attack their vehicles.
      10/13/2008 Pakistan Murid Wal 1 0 A young man is forced by honor to kill his mother when she refuses to break off an 'illicit' relationship.

    55. Re:Peace by florescent_beige · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please my friend can we stop with the Islam bashing? I'm begging.

      I'm just a good old Canadian boy who happened to marry into a family of Muslims and let me tell you the only thing that the entire lot of them want to do is have six-thousand course dinner parties that go on for hours and dance. I'm serious.

      If they worry about anything, which they don't seem to much, it's that their religion has been hijacked by nutcases. I guess we could talk about how the nutcases seem to always come from fundamentalist dictatorships that America had a hand in creating and supporting (The House of Saud, the Wahib clan, The Shah of Iran, the Taliban, Musharraf, Assad).

      But that is another discussion. If anyone holds to the belief that inside the heart of every Muslim is a bloodthirsty jihadist looking for the right time to strike, well, you couldn't be more wrong. Why not just go with the flow and enjoy the fact that middle eastern women tend towards the large-chested and friendly?

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    56. Re:Peace by Tenek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well then, I guess the people in Amalek, Samaria and Jabesh-Gilead must have taken great comfort in knowing that they were only part of a finite list of butchered victims.

    57. Re:Peace by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Actually the quran is quite specific in which souls need to have a cruel, agonizing and bloody death. It also clearly specifies how they're to be administered : every muslim is to "fight, kill and die" as a slave of allah until there isn't a single non-muslim left.

      I mean really. It's not like this self-same concept never existed in other religions.

    58. Re:Peace by Etrias · · Score: 1

      Excellent point.

    59. Re:Peace by zebul0n · · Score: 1, Informative

      Let me refute what you wrote:

      You mentioned:(Sura 2:191-193) "...and fight them until persecution is no more..."

      You ignored the sentence that comes just before that one:

      Sura 2:190: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

      Which gives it a whole new meaning along the lines of:

      be peaceful, do not begin hostilities, but you have to defend yourself if needed... (may allah forgive me for rephrasing this differently in order to simplify it in english...)

      Advice: go read the Quran yourself to have a first-hand account of what is written, and do not rely on second-hand quotations, especially in these times of cheap shots against muslims & islam

      http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html

    60. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      First off, while Aisha may have been raped by Muhammad (if you go by the relatively modern definition that says any sex with a young child is rape) (which is one that I agree with BTW), she didn't appear to resent him for it. She was, in fact, his favorite wife, and she loved and was very affectionate toward him.

      Second, while Jesus never had sex with a child (or with anyone, so far as the canonical Bible is concerned), Numbers 31 does have Moses (under God's command) ordering his soldiers to slaughter every man, woman, and male child among the Midianites, while keeping the female children to themselves. For what, manual labor, do you think?

    61. Re:Peace by EchaniDrgn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Off topic I know, but something interestingly different between the quotes from one scripture to the other.

      The Muslim scripture has blanket instructions to kill all of a select set of groups, from now 'till the end of time.

      The Judeo-Christian scripture has specific instructions against a given people for a specific time.

      In all reality reading any scripture independent of context is not the best way to compare religions.

    62. Re:Peace by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yet all of the Muslims I've ever met are charming, peaceful friendly people. Big on family values, very law abiding, and socially responsible.

      Religion is being used as an excuse! Hell, I can name a lot of Christian countries that used to burn "witches", and I don't think modern society would look too kindly on Lot offering his daughters to pacify a group of rapists. It doesn't mean that religion is bad. It means that the social structure of the country is archaic. The solution is to modernise the countries and the societies rather than jettison the religion.

    63. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are correct, the old testament is rife with violence, more fitting to the times in which they were written.

      On the other hand, followers of radical islam have not such qualms of bring such brutality into today's world over minor issues including cartoons and women's education.

      Can't wait till the petrodollars run out!

    64. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quotation fail. In each of the Biblical verses quoted above God was speaking of a particular set of people at a particular point in time. Nothing I've read of Muslim teachings indicates any such thing - "kill the unbelievers whenever you see them."

      Maybe include some context next time instead of cherry-picking. You sound like a presidential candidate.

    65. Re:Peace by saihung · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's all terrible.

      But the difference is that we don't do that stuff anymore. And when modern Jews recite those lines, we pretty much hold our noses. We're not busy stoning people, or cutting off heads, or whatever. Hell, some large number of American Jews are practicing Buddhists. Have you noticed piles of cobblestones around any Buddhist temples recently?

    66. Re:Peace by SailorSpork · · Score: 1

      Exodus 19:23: And the Lord said unto Moses: "Commandment XI: Thou shalt not post unto Slashdot, for they shall mark thy words as flamebait, and corrupt thine eyes with goatse, and shall turn thee to worship idols of pants."

    67. Re:Peace by computechnica · · Score: 1

      My favorite is that you can rape a virgin and then buy her for 20 sheckles - Leviticus

    68. Re:Peace by Frymaster · · Score: 1
      except noone can ever seem to be able to point to an instance when Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Joseph Smith, of even L.Ron Hubbard sending out murderers to advance their religion

      and no one can point to where Ahmad ibn Ajiba, Baha-ud-Din Naqshband Bukhari or Amadou Bamba sent "out murders to advance their religion". lesson: just because you can name some non-violent non-muslims and can't (or won't) name any non-violent muslims, doesn't mean all muslims are violent.

    69. Re:Peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's all great, but all of the most cheesy lines are from the Old Testament. Now Christians also have the New Testament, and the majority of them worldwide (all Catholics, all Orthodox, most Protestants) believe that the New Testament had done away with those old commandments, so that they're no longer in force, and also don't take the suspect lines from NT (such as "Not to Bring Peace, But a Sword") literally. Of course, there is also a "fire and brimstone", stone-the-gays minority that believes they're very much in force, but it's a tiny minority - and the one largely ostracized.

      Can you point me at the equivalent of the New Testament in Islam that would discard the laws such as stoning for adultery or beheading for apostasy, or name a mainstream Islamic school of law that considers those laws to not be in force today? Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?

    70. Re:Peace by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there is a assumption in the US that most people bashing Islam are Christian, and are saying by implication that Islam is a bad religion, as compared to their own. This is caused by experience, because something like 80% of the US is Christian and many of them do seem to express that opinion.

      This does, however, lead to arguments which are meant to expose the hypocrisy of that view, but on their own (without that shared assumption) merely show that both religions have violent crap in them.

      "The Bible is violent, too" is a perfectly reasonable rejoinder if the origin poster claims that it is not -- so given the polls in the US there's probably a 50% or so chance that it was a decent argument, and a 50% chance that he's just making himself look stupid to the atheists who think all religious people are crazy.

    71. Re:Peace by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The situation in Islam countries is often of major poverty,

      That is quite an important (and occasionally overlooked) point; the most dangerous people in the world are those with nothing left to lose.

    72. Re:Peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The Bible in places advocates mass murder and torture. The history of Christianity is full of mass murder and torture in the name of God.

      The Koran in places advocates mass murder of the infidel. Recent history speaks for itself.

      I've highlighted the word that's missing from one sentence, but not the other one. I think that is the key difference.

    73. Re:Peace by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

      Whats really interesting is the title for these posts is "Peace" and yet everyone is telling about the brutal sides of stories.
      I like it *grabs popcorn*

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
    74. Re:Peace by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      That said, of course you're right every ten years or so there is a terrorist attack that isn't muslims killing for islam.

      No, you're wrong. The real reason why they're killing people lies somewhere else, in the fact that they're being manipulated by their leaders, who only rarely (or never) personally participate in any kind of attack. Sort of like how the real reason why the US invaded Iraq wasn't to liberate its people.

      Every now and then some communists kill around a bit. It's been a while though.

      lol communism.

    75. Re:Peace by thedonger · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you sure God just doesn't really like Colt Firearms: Colt Peacemaker

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    76. Re:Peace by lastchance_000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody is trying to force public displays of pictures of Jesus

      Nope, nothing like that.

    77. Re:Peace by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      Religion is being used as an excuse!

      THANK YOU. A thousand internets for you, my friend.

    78. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It always amazes me how people don't read what they're referring to ... Heh.

      Besides, in the new testament you won't even find this type of things. So unless you're criticizing the Jews, might I remind you that (at least in catholicism and protestantism) the old testament is a historical tale, describing God's interactions with the Jews. Not the center of Christian dogma, that would be the new testament. Jesus, who refuses to shed blood even to save himself. The best known story ever told on this little planet. But even in the old testament the situation isn't one tenth as bad as you imply :

      1 Chronicles 21

      And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it...

      Oops, guess that one was a misser on your part, right ? You said "God". Actually a king did it, at the direction of satan. Also read the entire story. He did quite a bit more than "counting" before God intervened, protecting people (protecting some by attacking others).

      Deuteronomy 3

      Is about 2 armies fighting. One army faced another. One army did not survive, because God supported the other side.

      Hardly seems the same as "killing and plundering all cities", now doesn't it ? Oops. They did gain dominion of a kingdom through that victory. Well duh, they didn't fight for fun, they actually fought over something.

      I'd name all of them, none of which are anywhere near as clear-cut as you imply, but what's the point ? It's not like you're actually trying to make an informed argument about the bible. You haven't read the bible, and you're proud of the fact. First read those stories (and chapter before your reference and chapter after them), then we'll discuss what means what, like informed adults.

    79. Re:Peace by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

      Ah, nice. Should teach me to copy/paste from other places without double checking each of them myself(had done some, but certainly not all). Will try to make time to do the others myself later.

      As for Christianity not being called a religion of peace, perhaps not to you... But I've certainly heard it described as such by people up here(Canada). Nor have I or would I claim that all evil done in the world was at the behest of religion. Atheists are capable of being absolute bastards much religious people. Not sure that I'd say that what happened in Russia or China is the result of too much sceptical inquiry into the nature of the universe, or rational debate though. I've got a housemate right now who's from Beijing. To hear him talk of Hu Jintao or the political scene there in general is to see a cult of personality, not skepticism. Don't really know anyone from Russia. *shrug*

    80. Re:Peace by Moryath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll make you a deal.

      They stop treating their women as if they were afraid of womens' sexuality (keeping in mind I've done PLENTY of study of Islam) and stop sticking their women in beekeepers' outfits, and I'll be more than happy to "appreciate" the fact that middle eastern women tend towards large-chested and friendly.

      In all seriousness, though... "worrying" that your religion is "hijacked", and actually standing up en masse and saying so, are two different things. And by and large, Muslims seem just fine letting people "hijack" their religion all day long. That creates its own set of problems. Let's face it, the number of people at various "not in our name, you don't represent Islam" rallies is a mere fraction of those who rally for death and murder in Islam's name across the world.

      I wish it weren't so. I wish your relatives the best, I really do. But there's a long road ahead and they are, sadly, VERY much in the minority concerning their interpretation of the Muslim faith.

    81. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      Oh and Islam does not mean "repression"--it means "submission," i.e. submission to God. Which, BTW, is also advocated stridently in Christianity.

    82. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      I don't claim all muslims are violent. I claim muslims are ordered to be violent by islamic dogma, which is entirely correct.

      I don't claim all muslims act like islam orders them to do. That doesn't change the fact that islam DOES order muslims to commit, amongst other things, paedophilia and religious genocide.

      Fortunately, as the bible predicts, most people know good from evil no matter what their parents try to teach them. That, however, does not make islam itself any less evil.

    83. Re:Peace by enderjsv · · Score: 1

      The Chinese and the russians killed in the name of communism and justified it with the claim of treason. They did NOT kill in the name of atheism.

    84. Re:Peace by the+99th+penguin · · Score: 1

      "Blessed are the peacemakers"

      GREGORY:
      What was that?

      MAN #1:
      I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'

    85. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if they (and we) admit that by God we mean Money, things will get settled once and for all.

    86. Re:Peace by nsayer · · Score: 1

      However, there's only one major religion today

      Um, "major" and "religion" are two concepts that are impossible for disjoint sets of humans to correlate. Everybody is going to say that their religion is a "major" one - yes, that includes you atheists too - which means that you can't make assertions about the set of major religions, since nobody will agree on the set's constitution.

    87. Re:Peace by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?"

      Absolutely. This is a retarded question attempting to pigeonhole a huge group of people simply because it's easier than treating people like individuals.

    88. Re:Peace by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      That is quite an important (and occasionally overlooked) point; the most dangerous people in the world are those with nothing left to lose.

      But why are they poor? Surely it isn't because they force ~50% of the population (women) to wear veils in public, forbid them from having any rights, etc. All the the while "electing" and supporting violent leaders who do most of their crimes in the name of Islam. Nope, can't be any connection between poverty and Islam.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    89. Re:Peace by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's modded "funny" as was intended, you humorless fool. I'm guessing you're either a religious fanatic or an athiestic fanatic. I'm not sure which is worse, but you really need to chill.

    90. Re:Peace by thedonger · · Score: 1

      Insightful? Yes, God says that in the OT, but I don't recall that from NT books. The whole point of the NT is that the ultimate sacrifice was made for us and we no longer have stone our children. Except maybe for file sharing, but the Bible is a little fuzzy on that topic.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    91. Re:Peace by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      Except that the gp was insightful and not pushing political ideology.

      He may be making blanket statements, but if you were to poll all non-corporate executives, you would find that most people believe they are out to get "what's theirs" no matter who they have step over. That is the exact opposite of what the "Golden Rule" commands.

      How about the fact that if you polled independents and Democrats, you'd find that Republicans are, surprise!, considered warmongers.

      No, well how about how if you poll most republicans and independents, you'll find that Democrats are said to be more corruptible.

      I hate having to explain something this obvious, but there you have it.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    92. Re:Peace by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Who said you know better?

    93. Re:Peace by coolsnowmen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?

      I don't know, but then again, "Do you hate homosexuals?" isn't really the best conversation starter with a new friend.

    94. Re:Peace by Etrias · · Score: 1

      I guess my point really is about selective quoting. Fact is, there are millions of people who worship, in all religions, and are peaceful people. The selection of violent texts are used by a tiny minority to justify their actions of hatred against others.

      What I'm against is the blanket categorization of a whole religion, whatever that religion may be, because of contradictory passages in their text. One minute they say "kill everyone else" and the next "love your neighbor" (this of course is a generalization). The original post got my ire up because quotes like that were used to justify attacks and then the discrimination of a whole people because they now couldn't be trusted.

      I could go on a whole diatribe here, but I'm not going to. However, the OP with all of the quotes serves no real purpose other than to stir up animosity towards Muslims, which is something that I felt compelled to respond.

    95. Re:Peace by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      no no no, you're not doing it right, youve got to haggle!

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    96. Re:Peace by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

      [insert sarcasm-with-sincerity]
      Amen brother.
      religion sucks. And to top it all, im christian and id love to have a 6 course dinner party!

      but i do have to say, havent you ever seen Team America: world police? I mean, those rag head look really scarey!
      [insert /]

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
    97. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one:

      Sura 2.62 Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah (God) and the Last (Judgment) day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

      The only thing true is that both those who follow a religion and those who attack it pick and choose what they want.

    98. Re:Peace by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I was going to chide you for your timeline... I mean, the term "peacemakers" is used in the bible well before any firearm was ever manufactured.

      But then I realized that any omnipotent God worth His salt is going to know about all future events - so really He meant for this to happen and of COURSE He likes Colt firearms!

      (Is it just me or is all the capitalized pronoun business kind of creepy and hard to read?)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    99. Re:Peace by stephenhawking · · Score: 1

      There is no religion of peace. You don't have to cherry pick the Quaran to know this. The highest Muslim leaders (Ayatollah Komeini) have been known to call for the death of a man and anyone associated with him for simply writing a book. In the end, though Rushdie is alive, others have died as a result. Islam is not any religion of peace, but neither is Christianity.....I think these two are probably the worst offenders of all, with Judaism coming in third for the most violent religions in history. Sure, Christianity's power is kind of neutered now, and it has become a little kinder and gentler as a result. Islamic countries are still controlled by religious leaders (like the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah in Iran), and therefore still have the power to do evil on a grander scale than the Christians. That doesn't change all the dangerous things that are written in the bible....."Though shalt not suffer a witch to live" for instance has been responsible for countless innocent deaths before people came to enough sense to disregard it as nonsense. It's hard for people who believe this book to take any of it for nonsense.

    100. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what difference does it make? its still a god giving explicit orders to commit genocide!

    101. Re:Peace by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      Classic /. cliche...stand back and lob stones from your glass user account.

    102. Re:Peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Somebody set up us the bomb!

    103. Re:Peace by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

      Of course, cherry picking to find offensive things in the Quar'an isn't any better than quote mining the Bible.

      ...then you proceed to drive the point home like a railway spike to the head by picking a bushel of cherries yourself. Point taken...repeatedly.

      Of course, the worst you'll be subjected to from about five-9's of all Christians is some load complaining and people being personally offended. By and large, Christianity is a highly tolerant faith.

      If you took random quotes from, for example, Operating Thetan III, and posted them here you might very well face legal action from the Church of Scientology (regardless of what commentary you had interspersed with the quotes). Though quotations represent "fair dealing" to most, I'm sure they'd feel their IP has been violated as well as being offended personally and so they would litigate.

      Now, it gets even worse...if you made such a post with similar quotes from the Qur'an you may be the subject of a Fatwa advocating the termination of your life.

      Aside from perhaps a very small minority of nutbar cultists I know of no self-professed Christian that would advocate the death of anyone over commentary such as yours, yet many very prominent Muslim clerics and thousands of their followers to this day would feel more than justified in killing you on site if you presented a raft of quotes from their holy texts in such a manner. I know such extreme fundamentalists constitute a minority in the Islamic world, but to non-Muslims it can sometimes seem that too little is done to distance the mainstream faith from such perverted views. Thus, most non-Muslims aren't all that convinced that it is a "peaceful" faith.

      If (no...WHEN) some movie, song, performance or work of art were to make use of Christian scripture in a less-than-tasteful manner, no doubt some Christian leaders would call for boycotts, ask distributors to change or pull the content or whatever. And, quite rightly they would be laughed off, ignored or rebuffed by the creators of those works. Honestly, why should Islam be treated so specially because of even trivial "blasphemous" use of their scripture? Why is it that cartoonists who have Jesus in a smackdown with Santa Claus on international TV (priceless South Park) is protected speech that should be defended vigourously, but to reproduce a simple doodle from a newspaper purported to represent Muhammed is considered tasteless, offensive and disrespectful to the point that advertisers will boycott and clerics call for Jihad? Just what was said to these distributors to make them delay release and issue a massive recall? This would NEVER happen if the Lord's Prayer was used in a context Christians didn't like--even if it was the Pope himself who protested.

      Sometimes I wonder if the most devout don't take the Bible/Torah or Qur'an out of context as much as detractors such as yourself do. It sure explains how in this day and age we still have to deal with this kind of crap.

    104. Re:Peace by xSauronx · · Score: 0, Troll

      It always amazes me how people don't read what they're referring to ... Heh.

      Besides, in the new testament you won't even find this type of things. So unless you're criticizing the Jews, might I remind you that (at least in catholicism and protestantism) the old testament is a historical tale, describing God's interactions with the Jews.

      i was always told by my christian parents that god is never-changing. which is it? was he an old prick who had lots of people killed then changed? or was he an old prick who had lots of people killed but hasnt changed and nobody bothered to put any of it in the new testament?

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    105. Re:Peace by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      In all the establishment clause cases, the public display was tradition and voluntary and were sued to prevent the voluntary display. In most of these cases, the community supported the display.

      So the arguement is basically that, we've always endorced religon, and if a majority of the community supports it, it's ok to spend tax payer money on it. Do I have that right?

    106. Re:Peace by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      Do you hate the homeless? "The foxes have their holes, the wild birds have their nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head".

      and

      "Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

      34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."

    107. Re:Peace by kungfugleek · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Reading the old testament isn't always as easy as it appears. Because of the mixtures of genres in there it can be easy to come to some inaccurate conclusions. The writers of the narrative books, for example, assumed that the reader would make the right connections between stories usually by alluding to elements from earlier stories while not openly saying, "This was just like that one time in Ur..."

      While there are definitely some racy parts of the old testament, I don't know of any place where incest or rape is okey'd by God, but there are a few places where God's silence on the issue leads people to assume he's ok with it. Other passages usually make it quite clear that he isn't. But there is still the question of Adam & Eve's kids, and I'm not sure biblical scholars really agree on what that's all about.

      The times where mass-murder is advocated are interesting. God establishes the precedent in Genesis (when he floods the world and when he tells Abram that his descendants will come back and destroy the Amorites in 400 years because their evil was not yet fully grown) that he waits until a people group is wholly, completely, evil before wiping them out. In other passages he isn't as explicit, but in those cases there are examples of individuals within those societies who turned to God and were spared from being destroyed (this happened in Sodom & Gomorrah and in Jericho, and in the Exodus some of the Egyptian slavers left with the children of Israel, etc). The point being, that while it isn't as explicit as most of us would be comfortable with, there is a precedent there of still allowing individuals a chance to repent if they were really open to it.

      Not that I can explain away every strange passage in the Bible; I don't think anyone can. I just wanted to mention that when it comes to a text that was written thousands of years ago in a culture that none of us were a part of, in a language most of us don't speak, it needs to be read with a little more care than most (including myself) usually want to put into it.

      As for cruelties that have been afflicted in the name of God (some of them even in biblical times but without his blessing), I don't think there is any justification for them. Just a bunch of religious leaders who decided to abuse their power like any human would be tempted to do. And I know they like to justify their actions by finding passages in the Bible, but if you're going to just take verses out of context you can really make the Bible say anything you want.

      Also, knowing that about the Bible makes me hesitant to take a passage from any other religious text (the Qur'an included) out of its context and make judgements based on it. Someday maybe I'll have the time to study the Qur'an, but not yet.

    108. Re:Peace by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. You've read the Old Testament, right? There's sections there are pretty violent as well, just as unforgiving. I'm not going to find these quotes for you because I don't have the time now. I don't have them conveniently wrapped together in a chain email which I'm guessing you pulled this from.

      Please show me where in the Old Testament it says that the Jews are supposed to go out and convert others. That's the difference. It's one thing if you advocate stoning, etc. within your own group, but Islam preaches that everyone must be brought under the thumb of Islam.

      Islam preaches that all must become Muslims. Judaism teaches that Jews should not preach nor attempt to convert others. That's the difference.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    109. Re:Peace by unlametheweak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ironic that I was labeled a Troll here. This is exactly what I am talking about.

    110. Re:Peace by uberjack · · Score: 1

      "Blessed are the peacemakers" give Republicans the willies, and "Blessed are the pure at heart" terrorizes the Democrats.

      You got that all wrong. It's "blessed are the cheesemakers"

    111. Re:Peace by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      "God made men. Sam Colt made them equal."

      - anonymous 19th century wag

    112. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like how the real reason why the US invaded Iraq wasn't to liberate its people.

      Er... what's your point? Are you saying people forgot the WMD excuse? I find that hard to believe. The whole "liberate the people" was a side excuse to make people feel better about themselves. If the US wanted to liberate the people of Iraq, they wouldn't have waited around until after terrorists used planes to bomb the towers.

    113. Re:Peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.

      That's great for you, maybe not so much for him. Have you asked him if mainstream Muslims consider him an apostate?

      This is a retarded question attempting to pigeonhole a huge group of people simply because it's easier than treating people like individuals.

      You seem to imply that I have never dealt with Muslims on the individial basis. I did. Of those I've met, every single one had either concurred with this opinion of one prominent (in his country) Muslim politician, or said that it was too soft.

    114. Re:Peace by jcostom · · Score: 1

      First off, while Aisha may have been raped by Muhammad (if you go by the relatively modern definition that says any sex with a young child is rape) (which is one that I agree with BTW), she didn't appear to resent him for it. She was, in fact, his favorite wife, and she loved and was very affectionate toward him.

      Whoah, hit the brakes there bucky. Just because the child still liked him, and later forgave him, does that make it right? That's a big no.

      Second, while Jesus never had sex with a child (or with anyone, so far as the canonical Bible is concerned), Numbers 31 does have Moses (under God's command) ordering his soldiers to slaughter every man, woman, and male child among the Midianites, while keeping the female children to themselves. For what, manual labor, do you think?

      Speculate much? Direct evidence vs. speculation. Isn't it entirely possible that those were God's orders? Female children wouldn't be likely to grow up, rise up and exact revenge. Just as plausible as your "explanation."

      --

      The unsig!
    115. Re:Peace by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 1
      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    116. Re:Peace by rezalas · · Score: 3, Informative

      The bible says "though shall not murder" not "kill". The translation from many bible versions is wrong, and has been corrected over time. Kill != murder, there is a difference.

    117. Re:Peace by interploy · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that God will magically conjure people clothes, a bed and sandwiches if they believe hard enough?

    118. Re:Peace by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      Was Joshua a "terrorist" or a "Shock and Awe" guy?

      I mean, any way you slice it he was scary.

    119. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just no.

      Nearly each and every verse quoted above from the Qu'ran was taken in exactly the same out-of-context position as the Old Testament verses. Quoting them like that is just as dishonest.

      Of course, even some 'muslims' take them out of context or attempt to construct convoluted justifications out of them to explain actions that are otherwise damned by the koran.

    120. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, it's totally like rain on your wedding day.

    121. Re:Peace by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The difference, as I understood it, is that Muslim's view representation of the prophet as idolatry because you begin to worship at the feet of statue or painting, a false deity, rather than the true God.

    122. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those were quite specific commandments, against specific people who no longer exist. They give no permission or exhortation to kill anyone not specifically mentioned, e.g. Amalekites.

    123. Re:Peace by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Sure, but nowadays only a tiny few people actually consider that old superstitious nonsense much more than a hobby.

      You do realize, don't you, that the Old Testament is also sacred to Judaism while the New Testament isn't?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    124. Re:Peace by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      Something else for which to account is that the verses around those orders basically say that Israel is the force God has chosen for judgment on a particular nation or city. Other passages talk about other nations (Babylon and others) that God is going to use to drop the hammer on Israel for turning away.

      Not that you have to agree with the reasoning. But I believe that it is much, much better than, "If they don't convert, kill them. If they convert away, kill them".

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    125. Re:Peace by unlametheweak · · Score: 0, Redundant

      For the record, I don't (and didn't) wholly disagree with the posters statements. At the time I found them Trollish however. Motivations are difficult to prove. In hindsight I suppose I shouldn't be too quick to comment.

    126. Re:Peace by rezalas · · Score: 1

      You really need to avoid cutting the context out of the quotes like you have. If you only read what you want to read, don't be surprised to find only what you were looking for. Each of the butchered quotes you made have a meaning and a reason to the words and phrasing which you have purposely clipped out to make things to be something other than what they are.

    127. Re:Peace by Missing_dc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Um, no. He might go "Roman" on their asses, but it will probably be a new testament hand slap:

      "oh, come on you big thillies, you knooow thatth bad!"

      What ever happened to the pillar of salt justice or city leveling anger of the old testament god?
      Not being a follower, but having read the bible, I always wondered why, despite being referred to as male, "God" got emasculated in the new testament.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    128. Re:Peace by jadm · · Score: 1

      And when was the last time a game quoting the Bible was recalled for fear of offending Christians ? All religions are not created equal, and Islam is a violent, authoritarian creed. Denying this for political correctness is misguided at best.
      The New Testament overrules the Old Testament. The Bible is open to interpretation, as admitted by Christian authorities. Try to question the literal meaning of the quran and see what that gets you.
      Cultural relativism is getting SO boring, honestly.

    129. Re:Peace by Obyron · · Score: 1

      But they all have a bunch of bullshit that they're going to use to fleece you out of your money and manipulate you into doing their bidding. Hint: There is no God.

      --
      --Obyron
    130. Re:Peace by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      And the politically manufactured New Testament says that once all on earth have had a chance to hear the Good News, the end of days will come, and those who have accepted will live with God for eternity, while the rest will be cast into the burning pits where there will be gnashing of teeth.

      (what the hell is gnashing of teeth, anyway?)

    131. Re:Peace by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seriously lack perspective. Look again...with an open mind...

      In response to items like:

      "10/15/2008 Afghanistan Lashkar Gah 6 0 Six local police are taken out in a brutal Taliban ambush on their checkpoint."

      I suggest:

      US strike kills 9 al Qaeda and Taliban in North Wazirstan
      http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_strike_kills_9_al.php

      US kills 6 in strike in Baitullah Mehsud's territory
      http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_kills_6_in_strike.php

      US Kills al Qaeda in Iraq's deputy commander
      http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_kills_6_in_strike.php

      When we do it, its framed as a 'strike against $evil_people' not as an invasion force killing people in their homes, like when they fight back.

      In response to something like:

      "10/14/2008 Afghanistan Uruzgan 9 6 Two children are among nine civilians murdered when Taliban bombers target a minibus."

      how about:

      Unmanned US drone kills school children...
      http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php?sid=403793

      What do you think would be written if it had been their unmanned drone and our children?

      And as for this:

      "10/13/2008 Pakistan Murid Wal 1 0 A young man is forced by honor to kill his mother when she refuses to break off an 'illicit' relationship."

      Gee that sounds awful.. but doesn't REALLY sound much different than this:

      "An 18 year old boy, Sean Powell, was shot to death in his car outside the home of the married teacher he had been having an affair with. Local police have arrested the woman's husband, Eric Mclean, in the shooting."

      Same motivation, Same result, same difference. Oh wait... you mean to say it was a state sanctioned murder? gotcha...luckily we have those too...

      "Kevin Watts, 27, was pronounced dead on Thursday at 6:17 pm Texas time (2317 GMT), spokeswoman Michelle Lyons told AFP.

      It was Texas' tenth execution since the start of the year, and the second execution to take place this week. Ten more inmates are scheduled to be killed in Texas by the end of November."

      Granted we don't do it for adultry... but on the other hand, we don't exactly have the best track record for even properly ensuring our victims are guilty...

      http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall97/deathpen.html

    132. Re:Peace by darkonc · · Score: 1
      Right... Rather than conversion, we go for genocide. (As noted below). I don 't see how that's much better.

      ( Islam, by the way, inherits both the jewish old testament and the Christian new testament. )

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    133. Re:Peace by tcstoehr · · Score: 1

      These are quotes from bible stories. Not mandates for personal behavior. The bible doesn't tell you to kill those of other religions. The quran does. It also says alot of stuff about peace, love and tolerance. That's largely why there's such a divide among muslims. It's not a matter of being able to interpret anything you want. It's there plain and simple. Persecute the unbelievers on one page, then make peace with them on another.

    134. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pointing out hypocrisy strikes me as a fairly valid comment.

    135. Re:Peace by Trespass · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think not.

      Best regards,

      UTW

      Consider starting.

    136. Re:Peace by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      Isn't it entirely possible that those were God's orders?

      God's orders? God's orders!?! See, this is exactly the problem, that people believe that God is giving people, or ever gave people orders.

      The world would be a better place if people would ignore the voices in their heads, the voices in their leaders' heads, or the voices that their leaders made up in order to justify committing atrocities.

      Still, if you like that kind of stuff, please see this note:

      L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, maintained that ancient Egypt was "a battleground between two space groups" who infiltrated humanity and become integral to Egyptian culture. (What is Knowable to the PC, 1961) In Responsibility and the State of OT, he claimed that Moses had a "disintegrator pistol". -- Moses

      Now, when the Israelite army was executing the women and male children (which enlightened people understand to be disgustingly evil even when ordered by Magic Sky Faeries) and dragging the female children off to be raped (ditto), I wonder if Moses was using that disintigrator pistol? Or just that magical snake stick from the Bible?

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    137. Re:Peace by quanticle · · Score: 1, Interesting

      All the the while "electing" and supporting violent leaders who do most of their crimes in the name of Islam.

      Its funny you mention elections, because the most prosperous Muslim-majority nations are the ones that are democracies (Indonesia) or closer to it on that spectrum (Pakistan). The poorest Muslim-majority states are the ones that are under dictatorships, either religious (Iran) or secular (Syria, Libya, Jordan, etc.).

      In other words, I'm not sure how you can blame the public for the actions of what is usually a very small ruling bloc.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    138. Re:Peace by 2short · · Score: 1

      As an atheist, I assure you I am not going to say that my religion is a major one.

    139. Re:Peace by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      And Thankyou.

      Honestly, I think geeks arguing about religion is every bit as bad as Creationists arguing against evolution.

    140. Re:Peace by Chineseyes · · Score: 1

      I am not really religious but I remember almost all of those versus from when I was a child and none of them are commanding present day Christians to follow those actions. Those were directions that god gave to the Israelites. Every one of those quotes was taken out of context, I can't speak for the Qur'an but I would not be surprised if it was the same situation.

      --
      I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

      --A wise old fart named SC0RN
    141. Re:Peace by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll make you a deal.

      You stop talking about Muslims as if they were a homogeneous hive mind, and I'll stop considering you a flame-stoking bigot.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    142. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      Whoah, hit the brakes there bucky. Just because the child still liked him, and later forgave him, does that make it right? That's a big no.

      As I said, I agree with the modern definition--a child that young isn't emotionally prepared for that sort of interaction with an adult, especially one with that much power over her.

      On the other hand, crime involves both bad intent and bad act. And under the operating definition of rape for the culture where Muhammad and Aisha existed, what Muhammad did fell outside of it--specifically, because he was married to her. The definition of rape in Biblical times wasn't much different, as a matter of fact!

      Speculate much? Direct evidence vs. speculation. Isn't it entirely possible that those were God's orders? Female children wouldn't be likely to grow up, rise up and exact revenge. Just as plausible as your "explanation."

      Have you read Numbers 31? It's rather clear.

      The women of Midian "caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD." -- i.e. when raping their prisoners of war, some of them got VD.

      So Moses told them: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." -- i.e. keep alive the virgins because they won't have VD for you to catch when you're raping them.

      Note that the spoils of war included "thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him" and that, under Moses' orders, 32 of these "women children" were sacrificed as an offering to God.

    143. Re:Peace by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ephesians 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the saviour of the body. - That's right. Get back in the kitchen! Get back to submitting and quit telling me to take out the garbage.

      That's one of the Bible verses which is most often quoted out of context. If you read it in context then the wife gets off lightly. She only has to submit to her husband: he has to sacrifice his life for her.

      Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. - Pants are bad but rape is OK as long as you pay for it and marry her.

      It's not saying that rape is OK. This needs to be read with the cultural context in mind: without this law, the woman would simply be left unmarried and unmarriageable. The remedy for this tort is that the man must give her social status and support her financially for the rest of her life. Sure, she gets a rough deal, but it's better than she would have got otherwise.

    144. Re:Peace by sanosuke76 · · Score: 1

      BLASPHEMER! The Sigbyterians take offense to your assertion that God has named Colt as His chosen manufacturer!

      --
      My 229 is all the Sig I need http://thegunwiki.com/
    145. Re:Peace by couchslug · · Score: 1

      There are only a tiny number (compared to the numbers of Christians and Muslims) of Jews worldwide, and of those there are an even tinier number of seriously religious Jews.

      Even if ALL roughly 13 million Jews were clones of Meir Kahane, they couldn't do much damage outside of Israel.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    146. Re:Peace by sanosuke76 · · Score: 1

      Nope, the implication is that if you're worrying primarily about the things of God, God will ensure that circumstances work out such that you are taken care of. This is the basic premise by which missionaries go out into the field and end up being supported by donations from churches, etc.

      --
      My 229 is all the Sig I need http://thegunwiki.com/
    147. Re:Peace by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      The average Muslim is just about as religious as the average Christian.

      Your typical Moslem seems to be a lot better at his religion than your average Christian.

      Moslems fast during Ramadan. Few christians fast during Lent. A few give something up.
      How many Chritians do you know that memorise the Bible? Most need the contents page to find anything.
      Moslem males have beards. Their women dress "modestly". In the west, few people even wear suits to church. Few, non-weird, churches make their females cover their heads any more.

      They may be no more religious than us but they just try harder!

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    148. Re:Peace by Shark · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    149. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i can haz Heaven?

      Hai
      can has mslmio?
      i has da bmb
      im in yr loop
              up yrs bmb!!1
              visible splode
              iz splode bigger than 100000? kthxbai
      im stillin yr loop
      wtfbbq

      PS- disturbing CAPTCHA - "incest"
      crap now the Effin' Bee Eyes are in my loop
      wtfbbqkthxbai
      kthxbai

    150. Re:Peace by l0cust · · Score: 4, Funny

      You never know. It might be the start of something beautiful if he answers "No" and smiles at you the right way

      --
      Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
    151. Re:Peace by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Those two lines mean...
      ready for it?

      WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE

      This shocking bit of news brought to you by the Obvious.

    152. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      Besides, in the new testament you won't even find this type of things. So unless you're criticizing the Jews, might I remind you that (at least in catholicism and protestantism) the old testament is a historical tale, describing God's interactions with the Jews. Not the center of Christian dogma, that would be the new testament. Jesus, who refuses to shed blood even to save himself. The best known story ever told on this little planet.

      Oh?

      So I guess Jesus was kidding in Matthew 5:17 when he says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil"?

      And he'd never say something like "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matthew 10:14-15)

      Or there's Matthew 10:34-37: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 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. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 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."

      It's not quite Old Testament level, but it ain't hippie either. And that's only the first few chapters of the first book of the NT.

    153. Re:Peace by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

      Even reading that first in context, I still think it's despicable. Would not this be a "better" thing for God to have said?
      "Listen to what your husband says, and consider his counsel sincerely. And yet, if he what he says is bad do not blindly accept it but rather explain why you disagree in a calm and rational manner. Strive to understand his reasons, and to help him to understand your own. It is through such discussion of differences of opinion and the formation of compromise when needed that shall serve you well."

      Actually, 's/husband/fellow human beings' for that above.

      As for the 2nd, it simply punishes her FURTHER by saying that she should have to live the rest of her life with a man who is so repugnant. The man is a rapist. Not the foundation for a happy life together. God might well have said that the rapist be put to death(after all, many MANY sins end up earning the offender this) and that the woman be held blameless/be compensated. All I see this doing is making it such that the vile rapist gets pretty much unrestricted access to continue to rape her for the rest of their lives. It might not be the absolute worst outcome possible, but it's hardly the best that God could come up with. Hell, it's not the best that PEOPLE could come up with.

    154. Re:Peace by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't recall the western world living in constant poverty in the centuries when women had no rights. Japan actually was in a BETTER economic situation when women had very little to no rights(the two facts aren't connected at all, just making a point).

      The US isn't exactly known for electing great leaders either, often who do their crimes in the name of Christianity. *shrug*

    155. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a bit of a difference between pictures of Jesus and a monument of the Ten Commandments. The two are similar in kind, but not in degree. Unless you have examples that actually relate to pictures of Jesus, then what you are doing is equivalent to accusing Clinton of rape or Bush of murder.

      (Pictures of Jesus would be offensive to people of several religions who would have no objection to a monument of the Ten Commandments, which are not exclusive to any one religion; even Muslims revere Moses as a prophet, remember.)

    156. Re:Peace by mbius · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, there is also a "fire and brimstone", stone-the-gays minority

      I can't tell how careful you're being with semantics. Do you mean to imply (as below) the majority of Christians are not homophobes, or merely that they don't drag gay dudes behind pickup trucks in 2008 quite as often as they did a decade ago?

      Say what you will, that "brimstone" stuff plays pretty well in every church I've been to, and I've never set foot in the crazy ones.

      Can you point me at the equivalent of the New Testament in Islam that would discard the laws such as stoning for adultery or beheading for apostasy, or name a mainstream Islamic school of law that considers those laws to not be in force today?

      Not that I have any pretension you'll accept this as less than desperate apologism, but can you name the mainstream Sunni schools of thought, or describe their relations to each other? You can answer your own question googling e.g. "Hanafi adultery." Tough to do the penance for zina if you've been stoned to death. Where this happens, blaming Islam is about as sensible as blaming Thomas Jefferson for the DMCA.

      Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?

      And again, google. Try "gay Muslim." Clever, I know.

      How is this troll +5 insightful?

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    157. Re:Peace by mbius · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I'm sure they were worried about "offending" people whose idea of responding is to kill anyone who "offends" them. Like, say, Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie.

      Before you go putting words in Sir Salman Rushdie's mouth, why don't you ask him for his take on Islam? It's a hell of a lot more tolerant than anything you'll hear from the faux-outraged right wing in the US.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    158. Re:Peace by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Christians aren't trying to compel others to do what they otherwise would not.

      Really? Not even making all kids in public schools pledge allegiance to something under god?

    159. Re:Peace by tempestdata · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hi, I'm a non-homophobe muslim.

      Wish I could say I was pleased to make your acquaintance you ignorant, prejudiced and ill informed person, but I'm not.

      --
      - Tempestdata
    160. Re:Peace by mbius · · Score: 1

      Part of the trouble is that the verses you're referencing in the Old Testament were from a specific war -- "Go and kill the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead" or "Destroy the Amalekites" -- particular people who they were fighting at the time.

      Page 1 of a google query for "amalek" says you're lying. If it weren't a metaphor, it would be history instead of religion.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    161. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They stop treating their women as if they were afraid of womens' sexuality (keeping in mind I've done PLENTY of study of Islam) and stop sticking their women in beekeepers' outfits, and I'll be more than happy to "appreciate" the fact that middle eastern women tend towards large-chested and friendly.

      You are confusing religion and culture/tradition.

      While the Koran specifically admonishes women to cover their bosoms, the covering of the head/body has a long history going back far before Judaism and far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East.

      Someone who has done PLENTY of study of Islam should be aware of this.

    162. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you haven't.
      If they're not a mishomist, they're not practicing Islam as it is written, nor as it is decreed by Islamic leaders, nor as it is accepted by the majority of those that identify themselves as being of the Islamic faith.

      "Homophobia" refers to the FEAR of homosexuality, and many people are actually afflicted with it. It does not imply any form of hatred.

      Hey, wanna go to the fair this weekend?
      I don't know dude...
      C'mon, it'll be awesome!
      It's just that, I have this thing... with clowns...
      What? Seriously?
      Yeah, they just freak me out, and I can't be near them.
      I can't believe you, man. I thought you were cool, and now I find out you're a fucking Coulrophobe? BIGOT!

      I'm a vegetarian!
      Really? Cool, so you don't eat animal products?
      Well, I eat eggs and cheese.
      Oh, so you just don't eat meat?
      Well, I eat fish.
      Oh, so you're not really a vegetarian, but you say you are to get attention?
      Yup.

      I'm Native American, respect me and my culture!
      Looks to me like you're Mexican.
      I'm from Mexico. I am a Mexican, I am Native American.
      So you're differentiating your nation of origin from your ethnic background?
      Yes, now respect me, and let me into your colleges for free so I can fly the Mexican flag and protest the low wages of your custodial staff.

    163. Re:Peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It was par for the course in the time it happened - Sumerians practiced far worse things, in comparison. Similarly, no-one in a sane mind would hold against Islam its practices in the Middle Age - it's not as if there was any society more enlightened back then; aggressive wars of conquest, slavery, and misogyny were normal. We're talking about here-and-now, though, not several thousand, or even several hundred years ago.

    164. Re:Peace by sexconker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well it is, you know, kind of written in their religion that they have to kill the homosexuals.

      I have a hard time believing that most people who call themselves Muslim actually practice and follow their religion. (Same goes with any religion, really.)

      I don't get why people cling to religion. Sure, people say they're catholic/christian/jewish/muslin/etc, but that's usually a cultural thing.
      The number of people who actually BELIEVE their religion is much, much smaller. And the number of people who actually adhere to their religion's laws is infinitesimal.

    165. Re:Peace by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If the ignore those portions of the text, then they really aren't practicing that religion.

      YOu can't say your the pope and refuse to wear the funny hat, as it were.

      This discussion in no ways is saying only Muslims kill people. It is just saying they are direct to, in very specific ways, to kill people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    166. Re:Peace by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I have my Max Payne mousepad still.
      It and the box have a cool pic of a crime scene with police tape that said
      "DO NOT CROSS A MAN WITH NOTHING TO LOSE".

      http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/8621/89fxd8lfm1.jpg

    167. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of those are commandments to people today. Every one of them applies to events thousands of years ago during long-finished wars.

    168. Re:Peace by tempestdata · · Score: 4, Informative

      I apologize for my previous comment. It was made in anger. Apart from your prejudice showing, your post appeared to be that of a reasonable person.

      How many muslim's do you know? How many countries have you known them in? How many different age groups, races, social classes have they belonged to?

      You think that by talking to a handful of muslim's you have a grasp on the entirety of the beliefs of 1 billion+ people?

      I am a non-homophobe muslim. My wife is highly educated and an equal partner in my marriage, she does not wear a burkha or even a scarf. I do not think Jews are evil, that America is a great Satan, or that infidels should be slaughtered en masse.

      Do not presume to think that I'm a non-practicing muslim either. I've never had alcohol, or eaten meats I'm not allowed to. I fast, and I pray. I contribute to my mosque, I pay zakah, and have been for umrah several times. I hope to go for Hajj soon. Insha'allah.

      The assumptions you make from a handful of individuals that you do not understand are the foundation of all types of bigotry. From relatively harmless ones like 'women are bad drivers', to dangerous ones like 'black people are dumber than whites'.

      --
      - Tempestdata
    169. Re:Peace by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      It's a poor translation with little context.
      It was "youths" -- teenagers and young men.

      Baldness was a symptom of one of the diseases that would be labeled "leprosy", so this was about equivalent to saying he had AIDS/cancer/whatever (with a much harsher social stigma).

      Also, 42 guys died. I can't be certain, but I doubt that was everyone. A crowd of 42+ young men mocking him would be a serious threat to his life.

    170. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or a free ride when you've already paid...

    171. Re:Peace by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      So...
      Muslims are going with a closed source model and Christians with a shared-source one?
      I guess the theistic example of open source in is New Age religions.

    172. Re:Peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That people in Christian countries who usually mention Muslims as being a bunch of religious fanatics are usually, you know, Christians

      Do you have any source for that? Even this /. discussion seems to go against that statement, if you look at the comments of people skeptical about Islam-the-religion-of-peace, and then see how many of them are atheist/agnostic (and are also skeptical about Christianity-the-religion-of-love).

    173. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Showing that Islam is as bad as $other_religion doesn't change the fact that it *is* bad.

      Sorry for the interruption, go on with your religious penis measurement.

    174. Re:Peace by Null+Polarity · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not being a follower, but having read the bible, I always wondered why, despite being referred to as male, "God" got emasculated in the new testament.

      He settled down and had a kid.

    175. Re:Peace by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      That people in Christian countries who usually mention Muslims as being a bunch of religious fanatics are usually, you know, Christians.

      I'm sorry ... "Christian Countries"? Which ones would those be, exactly?

      Either way, I believe you're misguided if you believe the only reason why the so-called terrorism exists is because the Qu'ran advocates mass murder of infidels.

      Well, no, not exactly. Technically it would be wrong to say that Floods only exist because of water.

    176. Re:Peace by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      "The Lord said to Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their horses.' " (Exceedingly cruel.) (Joshua 11:6)

      Quick note: After hamstringing, the horses are useless for warfare, and they only hamstrung the horses that were captured (it's not like they could just wander into the enemy's camp and hamstring 'em there). So they were preventing themselves from using the horses for cavalry and chariots later.

    177. Re:Peace by koutbo6 · · Score: 1

      What makes you sure it isn't the same in quran? maybe you should try reading it in Arabic? isn't there a chance something gets lost in translation?

      --
      You speak London? I speak London very best.
    178. Re:Peace by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Really, if you read the scripture with a critical eye, it becomes apparent that Jesus was the bronze-age version of David Koresh. Sure, he's better than Mohammed in that he never preached open-warfare or genocide, but he wasn't exactly an angel either. He basically went around telling people to sell off all their property, disown their families, and come follow him. If there's a better definition of a Cult leader, I can't find one ...

    179. Re:Peace by aaronfaby · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the part where disobeying any of the 10 commandments carry the death penalty. The very first one is "put no Gods before me". Sounds like convert or die to me.

    180. Re:Peace by jeaster · · Score: 1

      Um, I need some help here. How does someone reading or singing a couple of lines out of a religious text delay a game? Are we stumbling into some weird copyright here?

    181. Re:Peace by Deanalator · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. A good friend of mine who is a practicing Muslim is openly gay, and from what I understand, neither his parents, nor anyone that he worships with sees it as any sort of problem.

      2. I have many Christian friends, and even the most liberal of them don't "discard" the old testament. There is a significant group that not only believe in the teachings of books such as Leviticus, but they believe everything there is the literal truth.

      My point is that fundamentalist conservatism sucks in any religion, especially when it is abused by politicians.

    182. Re:Peace by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 1

      It's a poor translation with little context. It was "youths" -- teenagers and young men.

      Oh, well that's OK then, there's nothing wrong with feeding adolescents to bears.

      Baldness was a symptom of one of the diseases that would be labeled "leprosy", so this was about equivalent to saying he had AIDS/cancer/whatever (with a much harsher social stigma).

      So? Baldness can also be a symptom of old age, radiation sickness, and being lit on fire. Making fun of someone for being bald is OK, but insinuating that they're a leper should be punishable by death?

      Also, 42 guys died. I can't be certain, but I doubt that was everyone. A crowd of 42+ young men mocking him would be a serious threat to his life.

      I can't be certain either, but they might have been riding dinosaurs. That would be pretty scary, right? No wonder God killed them.

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
    183. Re:Peace by aliquis · · Score: 1

      just watch how much I care about your flamebait/troll(/offtopic) moderations:

      Wtf?!

      "Even the bible has some pretty dark lines surpassing this one."

      What is that supposed to mean?
      Like if any of the christian religions would be peace loving. No shit the bible has dark lines. It's just a lot of punishment and judgement all the way. Behave or else!

      The sooner we get rid of all that kind of bullshit the better. Please stop the old fairy tales from affecting society, our lives, laws and science!

      On topic: I don't get what this article is about at all. What is Qar'an? What language is that? How does it matter if the samples contain it? Due to religious meanings? The message? Is it copyrighted?
      What a waste of pressed discs, shipping, time and so on. Unless it's copyrighted and solvable why care?

      Everyone will die and the earth will cease to exist. So what?

    184. Re:Peace by aMuslim · · Score: 1
      Here you go again, Moryath! Not only you've picked the verses out of context, you've even omitted parts of the verses. I don't know what your intention is to use the world 'Allah' instead of using 'God', since you've translated the verses to English anyway and kept that intact. Is this to add a bit more sensation so that every reader who may believe in a Creator may think that Islam implies somebody else? Or is it the same type of propaganda some people are using when they emphasize on the "Hussein" part of Barak Obama?

      [Verse 2:191] And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing. [168] And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; [169] but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth. Here's some explanation: In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-Arab).(Quran Ref: 2:190 )

      I have a friend, who is quite old, came from the Middle East, and is a Jew. According to her, Muslims and Jews used to live peacefully in the Middle East, and this animosity is relatively new and mostly political.

      I don't care what most of the people in this country say about Islam or Quran. Most of them have never read a single verse, or only have read excerpts from the summaries like the one you've made; and in many cases they're very happy that they're free from any obligation or responsibilities imposed by the new-found root of all evil in the current world---religion. Whether you believe in (one) Creator or not, please critically ask yourself next time if you're doing a good application of your knowledge by posting something even, factual, and unbiased, or it is driven solely by whatever subconscious agenda you may have.

    185. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      The fact that it's not "peace at all costs, at any price" is exactly right. Point well taken. You see that as a downside. Why ?

      That would be stupid. Your quotes may be ill-chosen, but the point is there. Jesus was not 100% opposed to violence.

      Violence, physical force is necessary, for some, to serve the purpose that the bible gives us. Police and even army is not a despicable institution for Jesus.

      Violence in the bible, for example, is not just allowed, it's a requirement. You have to fight for your family. You have to defend the weak. You have to fight for justice.

      Violence, like anything else in Christianity, is only bad if the intention is bad. Comitting violence like the paedophile prophet did, for booty, for sex, for slaves, for revenge ... those are horrid crimes. Fighting, even killing if necessary and risking your life for your family, for your country, for a beggar is commendable behavior.

      Anything else, would be stupid. Whatever else you believe in, or about the bible, you can at least accept that as true.

    186. Re:Peace by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought he said, "blessed are the cheesemakers."

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    187. Re:Peace by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      I was agreeing with you up to...

      ... you mean to say it was a state sanctioned murder? gotcha...luckily we have those too...

      The death penalty is a power too big for government to hold, but under no cases can it be even remotely defined as "murder".

    188. Re:Peace by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      That would be a great line for a video game...

    189. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... do religions of peace say things like:

      (Sura 2:191-193) "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

      [...]

      Yeah. I'm sure they were worried about "offending" people whose idea of responding is to kill anyone who "offends" them. Like, say, Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie.

      Sad day to see this happen.

      Clearly you have read a very poor translation of the Qur'an. I refer to my mashed dead tree and squid ink edition of N. J. Dawood's revised translation (ISBN 0140445587):

      (Saura 2:190-193) "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors.
      Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the placed from which they drove you. Idolatry is more grievous than bloodshed. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there; if they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they mend their ways, know that God is forgiving and merciful.
      Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers."

      Note I added Saura 2:190, as it is rather relevant in that it mentions to _NOT_ be the aggressor, citing God's direct disapproval of aggression and violence, even against non-believers.

      So before you throw around these rather poor translations, consider both context and quality of the translation. I think you should get a new Qur'an, since yours sounds like it is translated very poorly -- perhaps doctored, or with bias in translation?

      You will find that N. J. Dawood's translation is one of the (if not the) best translations to English of the book.

      And I would put more, but I think the point is there. Your citations are out of context and seem poorly translated, anyway. You sure haven't researched Islam very well if you accept the first translation handed to you of such an important text.

      Or is it just convenient for your argument to cite a poor translation?

    190. Re:Peace by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Maybe the game should quote the Bible instead. Or John McCain's foreign policy.

    191. Re:Peace by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

      I think it's more like "Well, we really shouldn't throw stones in our glass house..."

    192. Re:Peace by kelnos · · Score: 1

      The times where mass-murder is advocated are interesting. [...] The point being, that while it isn't as explicit as most of us would be comfortable with, there is a precedent there of still allowing individuals a chance to repent if they were really open to it.

      Bottom line: these stories tell of a supernatural being who caused/ordered/advocated the killing of large numbers of people because they didn't conform to what he arbitrarily decided was "right." Not cool. Especially after allegedly giving them free will to do as they pleased. What's the point of free will if you can't exercise it?

      (And please, no comments about how we as a society do the same thing. It's one thing for peers to decide how they want to live in society and punish others for failing to abide by those rules. It's quite another thing for an all-powerful entity to *create* life, tell it "hey, you have the ability to do whatever the hell you want," and then destroy that life when it doesn't do what was "expected of it.")

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    193. Re:Peace by XLR8DST8 · · Score: 1

      'ye', 'whence', 'lo', 'thou', 'canst', etc.. what's with the Old English? this the King James edition? reminds me of every historical fiction movie using an english accent no matter where the setting really took place. Gladiator for a relatively recent example. "unlike some other robin hoods, i can speak with an english accent."

    194. Re:Peace by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting difference, though, isn't it? Islamic fundamentalists trying to get rid of public displays of pictures of Mohammed, trying to eliminate people reciting the Quran in products, and so on, and meanwhile, Christian fundamentalists are insisting on public displays of pictures of Jesus, trying to get readings from the bible everywhere, and so on. It's just a different kind of crazy.

      And the secular progressives are also trying to get rid of public displays of the Christian religion, trying to get Christian teachings and quotes from the Bible banned everywhere (especially in schools), and so on. So based on the criteria above you should be agreeing with me when I say that behavior is the same kind of crazy as what you stated above. By the way, Christians don't do what you say to force it on others but they happen to believe in a little thing called freedom of religion which Islamic fundamentalist countries do not have. You are either a Muslim or you are dead in those countries (read about recent Christian murders in Iraq [forget the city but it is in the northern parts] over the last year which have ramped up recently). For those who think the U.S. is trying to enforce a state-sponsored religion by *allowing* Christians to practice their religious freedom they need to look at some of the Islam-based countries to see what true integration of church and state really is.

      It seems violent, defensive reaction to blasphemous behavior against Muslims has had the reaction in the U.S. where various organizations (schools, companies, etc.) are actually afraid of offending Muslims and will go out of their way to make sure they don't do anything to offend them. However they continue to not care if Christians are offended. So I believe there are 2 possible reasons for that: 1) they *really* want to continue offending Christians because they just like doing it no matter the consequences or 2) they like doing it and realize Christians won't kill someone in response because they are a more peaceful people and therefore they can be taken advantage of easier.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    195. Re:Peace by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

      Dude. L. Ron Hubbard? Seriously? Ever hear of the 'fair game' policy in scientology?

      Jesus was probably a jackass, really... I mean, the bible says he was sinless; it contradicts this with "All are born with sin". Jesus is a subset of man. Either he sinned, or that bit is *wrong*.

    196. Re:Peace by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      But Athiests (i.e. Russia, China) sure have killed a lot without any religious text.

      You forgot to stress their atheism was not the incentive for the killing they did (unless you can prove otherwise).

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    197. Re:Peace by XLR8DST8 · · Score: 1

      err that last quote was from Robin Hood: Men in Tights of course, and would have made more sense if i'd remembered to include paragraph tags.

    198. Re:Peace by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      ... AND it's freaking spelled ATHEIST, from greek theos - god and "a" - negating prefix.

      Will theists EVER learn? Anything apart from what they read from their "holy *cough*crap*cough* books"?

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    199. Re:Peace by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      The Judeo-Christian scripture has specific instructions against a given people for a specific time.

      I am not sure that most orders orders of that nature had a deadline. Not that it matters much. They usually did the job right the first time. (The story of Ester is an example of not doing the job right and having it come back to bite them)

    200. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      Comitting violence like the paedophile prophet did, for booty, for sex, for slaves, for revenge ... those are horrid crimes.

      You mean exactly like Moses did against the Midians?

      I put up the first quote for a reason--Jesus didn't disown the Old Testament. In fact, he said he was there to renew it and strengthen it. The God of Moses is the same as the God of Jesus.

      Jesus himself didn't preach violence on the same scale as Moses and Muhammad, but the Old Testament is just as much part of Christianity as it is part of Judaism.

      I don't in fact have much anything against Jesus. He said some good stuff, and most of the bad stuff he said was meant in a figurative manner. I'm not quite so happy with Paul, who was pretty fire-and-brimstone. It's less talking about violence that should be committed now, and more about violence that will be committed later by Jesus himself.

      By the way, you might want to reread the Sermon on the Mount if you think Jesus wants you to fight anyone--for any reason.

      Matthew 5:39-41: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."

      Matthew 5:44-45 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

    201. Re:Peace by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Did somebody say something about a free moustache ride in plaid?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    202. Re:Peace by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he just enjoys the fact that they help people with heart conditions?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    203. Re:Peace by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?

      I know quite a few gay muslims, and they aren't the self-hating kind, either.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    204. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?

      Yes, thought don't take my word for it, go to your nearest international school, or nearest large University. Meet their teachers, and students. Or the next time you're on a plane, try speaking to the person next to you. If you're going to try to stereotype an entire religion, please at least try not to base your stereotype on what one convenience store owner may have said to you (or worse yet, what you may have seen on TV).

      There is already quite a disparity of opinions even among Christians on this issue. For instance, the opinion you're going to receive from a white Christian truck driver may be completely different from what you may hear from an accountant of the same faith. The only problem is that you're probably used to be around the same kind of people all the time, and so you probably believe that the white Christian people around you are representative of what other white Christians believe in the rest of the country.

    205. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      You know that Muslims revere Jesus too right, and Jews think he was a pretty decent guy even though he wasn't the Messiah?

    206. Re:Peace by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you are arguing for the tribe's innocence, Amelek is probably the worse example you can come up with. IIRC, they raided the rear of the procession coming out of Egypt.

    207. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      And the secular progressives are also trying to get rid of public displays of the Christian religion, trying to get Christian teachings and quotes from the Bible banned everywhere (especially in schools), and so on.

      Not quite. We're trying to get religion out of the public sector. If you want to worship on your own terms, that's fine. Did you know my high school had a student prayer circle every day at lunch, and some teachers even participated? Yeah, nobody bitched about it, because it was voluntary and student-led.

      Compare that to mandatory homeroom "okay everyone stand up and recite the Lord's Prayer now" which was, rightly, banned.

      I bet you hate the ACLU too, huh?

    208. Re:Peace by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 'cause the WMD plan turned out so we-

      Oh wait...

    209. Re:Peace by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry ... "Christian Countries"? Which ones would those be, exactly?

      Umm... those who support the Christian church through public funding? What about a country whose paper money says "In God we trust"?

      Well, no, not exactly. Technically it would be wrong to say that Floods only exist because of water.

      And your point is...?

    210. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      Despite my incredulity, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and explain that the Qur'an is the holy book of Islam. The words themselves are considered by Muslims to be holy, and reading those words aloud considered to be an act of prayer. So some Muslims would get pissed off about verses from the Qur'an being recited during a song for a commercial video game that has nothing to do with prayer. Sony did this not for copyright issues but to avoid a backlash in countries with large Muslim populations.

    211. Re:Peace by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      ...and I'll stop considering you a flame-stoking bigot.

      So speaking the truth equates to being a flame-stoking bigot? I'm sorry that you're offended by the discussion of this controversial topic. However, your personal feelings toward someone doesn't change the fact of what *is* in this world. What ever happened to being "open minded"?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    212. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live for the swarm!

    213. Re:Peace by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Aww, you should have said,

      LOL! they cannot escape! Make your time! HA HA HA HA!

      Take off every Ziggurat!

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    214. Re:Peace by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Umm... those who support the Christian church through public funding?

      That's a flawed definition. Let's take the UK as an example - they support the Christian church by granting it tax exmpt status, and allowing some public funding to go to Christian schools. But they also give tax exempt status to Mosques, and provide public funding for Muslim schools. So would you say that the UK is a Christian nation, or an Islamic nation?

      Of course, you're just being willfully ignorant - the definition of a Christian nation would be one in which Christianity is the official government-sanctioned and supported religion. It's obvious that you didn't want to stick to the actual definition because it would have exposed the absurdity of your comment.

      What about a country whose paper money says "In God we trust"?

      Which God?

      In Canada our money says "D.G. Regina", which translates to "By the Grace of God and Queen". Does that make us a Christian Matriarchy?

      French currency says "Liberte, egalite, fraternite" - what does that make them?

      And your point is...?

      Read it again, I'm sure you'll get it.

    215. Re:Peace by zebul0n · · Score: 0

      Let me refute what you wrote:

      You mentioned:(Sura 2:191-193) "...and fight them until persecution is no more..."

      You ignored the sentence that comes just before that one:

      Sura 2:190: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

      Which gives it a whole new meaning along the lines of:

      be peaceful, do not begin hostilities, but you have to defend yourself if needed... (may allah forgive me for rephrasing this differently in order to simplify it in english...)

      Advice: go read the Quran yourself to have a first-hand account of what is written, and do not rely on second-hand quotations, especially in these times of cheap shots against muslims & islam

      http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/002.qmt.html

    216. Re:Peace by Lt.Hawkins · · Score: 1

      #define return amen

      amen();

      --
      -- My Sig is a P228.
    217. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have done PLENTY of studying of Islam, but you know nothing of it except what you want to see, a religion which dictates war and hate. See, you have a serious problem, you're reading the Koran, and you're taking it literally, unlike the majority of Muslims, who just want to live a simple life of peace. This still makes you an uneducated moron. Go LIVE in a Muslim country, then come back to us and let us know what you experience. And when I say go live in a Muslim country, I mean really live there. Not visit some tourist town.

      I wish it weren't so. I wish your relatives the best, I really do. But there's a long road ahead and they are, sadly, VERY much in the minority concerning their interpretation of the Muslim faith.

      And who the FUCK do you think you are telling people that they are a minority in their views? Excuse me, but the majority of Muslims are moderate and don't actually follow the book word for word. They are in the majority. They've gotten over the fundamentalist bullshit. You haven't. You really need to get a life. Yes, there are suicide bombings. Those are from minority fundamentalist factions. Guess what Einstein, if you play the news of a minority faction over and over again, people will believe that they are part of the majority.

      In all seriousness, though... "worrying" that your religion is "hijacked", and actually standing up en masse and saying so, are two different things. And by and large, Muslims seem just fine letting people "hijack" their religion all day long.

      So if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to listen, does it make a sound? Just because you're ONLY hearing about the bad, doesn't mean that nobody is actually speaking up. Take 9/11 for example. While asshats like yourself were busy whining about there not being a response, there actually was.

      So why don't we ever hear about these things? Because sex, violence, and hate sells. Why should they focus their reports on people who preach peace when they can focus on those that preach violence? Get this in your fucking skull. If you were to read slashdot, and NOTHING but slashdot, you would believe that all computer users were smart and only used Linux, hated the RIAA, and knew everything there was to know about technology.

      If you ONLY hear about suicide bombers, you'll believe that they are the only ones that exist.

      I've visited Muslim countries on three different occasions, living with the locals, and I've felt nothing but warmth and kindness. There were no death threats, no "death to america" chants, and certainly no mistreatment of women in everyday life. It existed, and I talked to the locals about the problems and they all agreed that things are slowly changing for the better.

      Islamic countries have a long way to go, and rather than focusing on specific verses that preached violence, why don't you focus on the big picture? Why don't you put as much time and energy looking for some signs of progress?

      No, that's not enough, but over time things will change for the better, and blithering idiots like yourself will still be around spewing out propaganda bullshit that would make Karl Rove blush.

    218. Re:Peace by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Crap, I bought a whole pile of pickles to stone them with...

    219. Re:Peace by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      So speaking the truth equates to being a flame-stoking bigot?

      Which "truth" are you referring to? This one?

      They stop treating their women as if they were afraid of women's sexuality...and stop sticking their women in beekeepers' outfits

      First of all, Moryath seems to be getting his zingers from Bill Maher. I'm a big fan, but ya know, he's not exactly a sociologist. Also, Maher is a Muslim name, so that's confusing.

      The point is, who does Moryath mean by "they"? All Muslims? Hardly. Most Muslim men I know are big fans of female sexuality. To a fault. The fraction of Muslim women who are forced into burqa is minuscule. The broad implication that Islam says throw a tarp over women is ridiculous.

      Personally I wouldn't say bigotry though. I'd just say, not educated enough yet.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    220. Re:Peace by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's not being literal, he's referring to any maker of dairy products.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    221. Re:Peace by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      You have apparently never read the bible. There are all sorts of atrocities either committed by god or by he/she/its commands to followers. Among them are encouraging mass rape, incest, infanticide, and genocide.

      Try here for a start: http://www.evilbible.com/

      ~X~
       

      --
      ~X~
    222. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do wish I could mod +1 accurate...

    223. Re:Peace by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy alone contain countless decrees for death and destruction to fall upon anyone that doesn't not follow their god. And they contain countless more cruel punishments for those who violate any of gods rules.

      You really need to read the bible. And not just the parts that make you feel warm and fuzzy.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    224. Re:Peace by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      If the New Testament is supposed to override the Old Testament in all things (that is the "Old Law" is wholly no longer applicable, not just the parts that disagree with your personal worldview), then there should be no reason to have a problem with homosexual et al, right? I mean there's only one place in the NT that refers to homosexuals in any translation, and it uses two words to refer to them, one meaning "effeminate" and the other not having a proper translation, but taken literally is "man-beds".

      So, um, in conclusion, perhaps you might reread Mark 16:16-18, and demonstrate your faith by the second sign in Mark 16:18 (I would suggest aconitine). After all "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; ... And these signs shall follow them that believe; ... They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

    225. Re:Peace by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Forgot to mention, in my other semi less friendly post, that you might want to look at this convenient list http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html . It lists references to Crualty and Violence within the scope only of the New testament. =)

    226. Re:Peace by cbraescu1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its funny you mention elections, because the most prosperous Muslim-majority nations are the ones that are democracies (Indonesia) or closer to it on that spectrum (Pakistan).

      According to this Wikipedia article, the biggest per-capita GDP, on a PPP basis, is... Qatar (a Muslim country).

      Let's see which other Muslim countries have a better rank than your Indonesia and Pakistan: Brunei (#4), Kuwait (#9), United Arab Emirates (#14), Bahrain (#24), Oman (#36), Saudi Arabia (#38), Libya (#58), Malaysia (#59),

      The first Muslim country that is a democracy is Turkey, coming at #61.

      So whatever your point was... it was dead wrong.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    227. Re:Peace by interploy · · Score: 1

      Makes sense, but I don't see how your previous comment refutes or explains the other poster's quote "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." I think it's pretty clear in the bible that Jesus advocated a simple, hard-working life. I don't believe a lazy man would be rewarded in a physical or spiritual sense even if he was a strong believer in God. Or is it also implied that "worrying primarily about the things of God" includes doing the simple, hard-working part?

    228. Re:Peace by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Wait, you are saying that early->Medieval->up to the 20th century Christendom caused less killings than Islam? Or should we go far enough as to say that about Christians in general, and not merely the institutions or Christianity and Christian governments (and you are not allowed to invoke the No True Scotsman situation, where anyone who does bad stop counting as being a "real Christian" unless we allow the Muslims to do the same).

    229. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Christian quotes mostly talk of past violent events.

      The Islamic ones are instructions to commit future violence.

      Both violent yes, but Islam is pointing their violence forward towards non-Islamics.

      Nice try though.

      By the way, do a google search on "islam stoning" and look at the first result to see how the religion of peace behaves.

    230. Re:Peace by quanticle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Per capita GDP is not a measure of prosperity, as it often hides tremendous inequalities in the distribution of wealth.

      Its rather a bit like the old joke, "If Bill Gates walked in the room, our average net worth would be over a billion dollars." In the same manner, oil barons and royalty in those states are enormously rich, while the average person makes a pittance.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    231. Re:Peace by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Islam orders it's members to commit pedophilia? Is that meant in reference to one of Mohammed's wives? The one who was betroved(sp?) to him at age 6, and consummated when by custom in that part of the world at that time was proper (read: after menarche)? Who is, as I recall, also about as revered as a woman gets in Islam, and is also referred to as the "most beloved" of his wives?

    232. Re:Peace by Rhesusmonkey · · Score: 1

      So the New Testament negates the old testament? We can forget all that hateful crap about stoning children and subjugating women? Your idiotic rhetorical question goes both ways, for example: "Have you ever met a non-homophobe Christian?" Of course the answer to my question and yours is Absolutely, but they're in opposition to thier faith.

      Don't be using one religion to validate or piss on another, they're all garbage.
      (BTW, even discussing other religions is a death by stoning offense according to the OT*)

      (Not the OT where Han shoots first, the other OT)

      --
      You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
    233. Re:Peace by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Oh, well that's OK then, there's nothing wrong with feeding adolescents to bears.

      My point was that these weren't children that didn't know any better.

      So? Baldness can also be a symptom of old age, radiation sickness, and being lit on fire. Making fun of someone for being bald is OK, but insinuating that they're a leper should be punishable by death?

      Elisha was also a prophet. In mocking him they were also mocking God.

      I can't be certain either, but they might have been riding dinosaurs. That would be pretty scary, right? No wonder God killed them.

      Even if there were only 42, they could still be dangerous to one old man.

    234. Re:Peace by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As an atheist I am far more offended by the atheistic fanatics.

      At least the religious people think that what I think matters if they are a dick about it.

      The atheists trying to put down the religious are just dicks with no justification.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    235. Re:Peace by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      It's from a TV show, but I think it rings true to what a lot of quite devout people believe.

      A character was having problems, because he was discovering his religion (Islam) and his best friend was gay.

      blah blah blah, teen drama, he stops talking to the guy.

      His dad (very devout) says "I know he's gay"
      "but we're Muslim, how is that okay"?
      "God speaks to us in many ways, and sometimes I think I can tell what he says, but it is obviously wrong, so I know what is truly happening is I mis-understand"

      All paraphrased from Skins towards the end of the first season (final episode maybe). This is the kind of dichotomy that most devout people I know have (devout, but non literalist).

      I will add to all the whacko young-earthers. I am an atheist, but genesis is a fantastic way of explaining the early universe in terms that make sense without an understanding in physics. Its (IMO) amazing accuracy is one of those things that gives me pause.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    236. Re:Peace by JimboFBX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not aware of any Muslims who don't practice their religion quite seriously.

    237. Re:Peace by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Jews think he was a pretty decent guy

      Tell that to these guys:

      When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

      All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

      Matthew 27:24-25

      *Oh, come on, don't forget your sense of humor!

    238. Re:Peace by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      of even L.Ron Hubbard sending out murderers to advance their religion.

      The only reason you don't hear about this is because the Church of Scientology sends out DMCA take down notices and stalks people with SLAPPs.

    239. Re:Peace by Velocir · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to quote incomplete excerpts out of context from poor translations, but well done anyway...

    240. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      Modern Jews think he was a pretty decent guy. :P Just ask Rabbi Shmuley.

    241. Re:Peace by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Not quite. We're trying to get religion out of the public sector.

      Why? You believe it is okay to violate others' 1st amendment right in order to uphold your.....right not to be offended? I can't seem to find "the right not to be offended" in the country's founding documents though.

      If you want to worship on your own terms, that's fine.

      And if you don't want to then that's fine too but don't stop someone else from doing so just because you don't want to participate. Do you try to stop any activity that you don't plan on taking part in just so others can't do it? If not, why draw an arbitrary line at trying to stop other people from practicing their religion? Mind your own business. No one is forcing you to do something.

      Did you know my high school had a student prayer circle every day at lunch, and some teachers even participated? Yeah, nobody bitched about it, because it was voluntary and student-led.

      That's a wonder it was not shutdown merely because it would have been soooo easy for someone to accuse one of the teachers (or all of them) of actually leading it. Then again, at other schools, student speeches which have any hint of religion in them (well, Christianity) are not allowed at graduation ceremonies despite being student speeches, which is why I said before that those student prayer circles are lucky they weren't shutdown. In another school they would have been, unjustly so.

      Compare that to mandatory homeroom "okay everyone stand up and recite the Lord's Prayer now" which was, rightly, banned.

      So what do you do when they make you recite the Pledge of Allegiance (with or without the "under God" phrase? Depending on how much you like Congress and the rest of the government that day you may not feel very patriotic. Are you going to eventually want it banned? I've never heard of any school system requiring students to recite the Lord's Prayer let alone hear of anyone banning it. But actively forcing students to do something and supporting them when they want to do something (whether it is initiated by students or not) are 2 different things for which many secularists don't care to make the distinction. And therein lies the problem. Secularists don't want to make a distinction. They want all signs of religion stamped out which flies in the face of the 1st amendment. Your right to no religion stops at someone else's right to continue practicing their freedom of religion. And if anything, the fact that freedom of religion is explicitly in the founding documents trumps your freedom of *no* religion. Until you are actually forced to participate, as you stated above in your example (which was a good example), then no harm done. Using a blanket statement of wanting to get religion out of the public sector and acting upon it is a violation of the first amendment. Making sure no one is *forced* to do something however is something I support. Just feeling offending doesn't count. You must be explictly forced to participate in a religious activity for me to have any sympathy for your cause (because only then is your cause truly validated for the reasons you believe it to already be valid).

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    242. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I've never had alcohol, or eaten meats I'm not allowed to. I fast, and I pray. I contribute to my mosque, I pay zakah, and have been for umrah several times.

      But do you run Linux??????

    243. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. They both suck.
      So. Leave the chants about death and destruction in Arabic in, and lets add a gothic cathedral with latin chants about the apocalypse.

      'course, latin chants are a-ok.

    244. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you Jewish?
      Racist Alert!!! moryath IS A RACIST!!!

    245. Re:Peace by jadm · · Score: 1

      What exactly is the relevance to my comment ? Where did I talk about my personal worldview ?
      A minority of Christians take Bible literally. A majority of Muslims take the quran literally. Nowhere did I talk about my faith.

    246. Re:Peace by jadm · · Score: 1

      You really might want to reread my original comment, and stop chasing your own tail with your arguments.

    247. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why? You believe it is okay to violate others' 1st amendment right in order to uphold your.....right not to be offended? I can't seem to find "the right not to be offended" in the country's founding documents though.

      Because the United States has no state religion. That separation between church and state doesn't exist solely, or even primarily, to protect the state from the church. It exists also to protect the church from the state.

      It's perfectly reasonable for politicians to talk about their own religious beliefs. Hell, I'm a fervent supporter of Barack Obama, and he peppers many of his speeches with more religious references than any President since Carter.

      But attempts to insert any specific religion into law or government are against the very founding principles of this nation.

      And if you don't want to then that's fine too but don't stop someone else from doing so just because you don't want to participate. Do you try to stop any activity that you don't plan on taking part in just so others can't do it? If not, why draw an arbitrary line at trying to stop other people from practicing their religion? Mind your own business. No one is forcing you to do something.

      Who's advocating stopping someone else from practicing their religion?

      That's a wonder it was not shutdown merely because it would have been soooo easy for someone to accuse one of the teachers (or all of them) of actually leading it. Then again, at other schools, student speeches which have any hint of religion in them (well, Christianity) are not allowed at graduation ceremonies despite being student speeches, which is why I said before that those student prayer circles are lucky they weren't shutdown. In another school they would have been, unjustly so.

      And yet amazingly after four years in a high school of around 2000 students in a relatively rich, liberal, Jewish neighborhood in Florida, it never did. Maybe the spectre of Christian persecution just isn't as prevalent as you think it is.

      So what do you do when they make you recite the Pledge of Allegiance (with or without the "under God" phrase? Depending on how much you like Congress and the rest of the government that day you may not feel very patriotic. Are you going to eventually want it banned?

      I say the Pledge of Allegiance proudly, in its form prior to being changed in the 1950s to include "under God." As for whether it should be mandatory in school, well no it shouldn't be, but it already isn't. Children aren't required to say it, though they are sometimes required to stand. Listening silently to the teacher-led Pledge of Allegiance, however, is a far cry from listening silently to a teacher-led Christian prayer.

      On the one hand, you have "I pledge allegiance to the Flag..." While on the other you have "Our Father who art in Heaven ... Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven ... Forgive us our trespasses ... For thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory, now and forever ..." -- Which most certainly puts a teacher, as an employee of the state in a position of power over the students, into a position of advocating a particular religion.

      I've never heard of any school system requiring students to recite the Lord's Prayer let alone hear of anyone banning it.

      You haven't heard of it because the Supreme Court ruled it illegal in 1963 in Abington Township School District v. Schempp.

      But actively forcing students to do something and supporting them when they want to do something (whether it is initiated by students or not) are 2 different things for which many secularists don't care to make the distinction.

      As a matter of fact we do. That's why I asked the question about the ACLU. These are some cases argued by that mos

    248. Re:Peace by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for your argument, very few people have ever been sentenced to death for violating these or other bible laws. A person could only be sentenced to death if:

      1) He was approached by (at least) two witnesses who informed him that he was violating the law and the consequences of his actions.

      2) He acknowledged knowing that he was breaking the law and the consequences of such actions yet continued doing so nonetheless.

      3) The two witnesses bring this issue to the attention of the Sanhedrin (Jewish Supreme Court), of whom it was said "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: even once in seventy years." [1]

      4) The Sanhedrin reviewed the evidence and sentenced the person to death.

      5) The witnesses had to personally carry out the execution. Something that no one was particularly inclined to do.

      The end result is that it was virtually impossible for anyone to be sentenced to death. You can read the following article for more details.

      References:
      [1] http://www.myjewishlearning.com/lifecycle/Death/About_Death_and_Mourning/Death_Penalty_Jacobs.htm

    249. Re:Peace by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Way to quote things out of context. For example, you neglected to point out that:

      "You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53)

      is proceeded by:

      "If you don't obey all of the laws in the Old Testament, God shower you with the curses that are listed in the the next 52 verses."

      At no point is God saying that people *should* do these things, rather he is threatening the people that if they do not follow the commandments terrible things will befall them.

      And if you read further back in context you will realize why God even made such threats. The Jews weren't supposed to wonder in the desert for 40 years. They were supposed to enter Israel right after leaving Egypt. The above curse and 40 years of wondering in the desert are a result of "bad stuff" they did along the way which rendered them unworthy to enter right away. In short, they severely offended God once so he was just warning them to make sure they understood what happened if they did it again ;)

    250. Re:Peace by tibman · · Score: 1

      To my knowlege, most Muslims cannot read the Koran. They might read translations or interpretations, but certainly not the true Koran itself. This is one of the key functions of the religious leader (Shiek) in an islamic tribal society, to read and translate the Koran.

      mmm, i wasn't trying to shoot your comment down. I just wanted to show that very few Muslims can memorize the Koran because so much of the written language itself is subject to interpretation. Most muslims will argue that the Koran itself cannot be translated to another language at all.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    251. Re:Peace by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      when Jesus comes back, he's totally going medieval on all your asses.

      Only because Jesus loved science fiction, and would totally whoop people in a method a thousand years beyond his time.

    252. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      taking things out of context, interesting, there surely needs to be more understanding how they are translated and what they imply.

      Hats off to sony, why would you offend anybody.

    253. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yusuf Ali Translations, which I would say most Muslims use as they are more accurate:

      Sura 2: "191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. 192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

      and so on:

      http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/

    254. Re:Peace by jagdish · · Score: 1

      Time for my prayers: Our Father, who 0wnz heaven, j00 r0ck! May all 0ur base someday be belong to you! May j00 0wn earth just like j00 0wn heaven. Give us this day our warez, mp3z, and pr0n through a phat pipe. And cut us some slack when we act like n00b lamerz, just as we teach n00bz when they act lame on us. Please don't give us root access on some poor d00d'z box when we're too pissed off to think about what's right and wrong, and if you could keep the fbi off our backs, we'd appreciate it. For j00 0wn r00t on all our b0x3s 4ever and ever, 4m3n.

      I'm so glad bash is back.

    255. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... Then shalt thou ... stone them with stones, till they die."

      As opposed to... say... stoning them with cardboard boxes.

    256. Re:Peace by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Also, Jabesh-Gilead wasn't destroyed (at least not by Israel by the time of Saul).
      In fact, Saul rescued Jabesh-Gilead when it was besieged by the Ammonites.

    257. Re:Peace by Airw0lf · · Score: 1

      All the the while "electing" and supporting violent leaders who do most of their crimes in the name of Islam.

      Its funny you mention elections, because the most prosperous Muslim-majority nations are the ones that are democracies (Indonesia) or closer to it on that spectrum (Pakistan). The poorest Muslim-majority states are the ones that are under dictatorships, either religious (Iran) or secular (Syria, Libya, Jordan, etc.).

      In other words, I'm not sure how you can blame the public for the actions of what is usually a very small ruling bloc.

      Are Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates democracies? Those are two of the richest nations in the muslim world, not to mention the entire world!

    258. Re:Peace by sanosuke76 · · Score: 1

      Aha. Well, what I was getting at is just that believing hard enough won't conjure sammitches from mid air, but living a Godly life (which doesn't include being lazy) will cause circumstances to tend to adjust such that you don't starve, etc. So in this case, yes, "worrying primarily about the things of God" includes a simple life with hard work. I shall qualify it to state that I don't think Jesus cared whether your work was mental or physical, but only that it was work. I also think that a simple life really just means one that's well within your means. I personally think that if we could ask God, we'd find that He doesn't care much for interest-only loans or ARM's, for that matter. I'm NOT claiming that the meltdown is some kind of divine punishment, but taking such a loan to afford something far beyond one's means is probably what He was cautioning against when He spoke of extravagances, etc.

      --
      My 229 is all the Sig I need http://thegunwiki.com/
    259. Re:Peace by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers".
      Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers?
      Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

      Mrs. Big Nose: [trying to hear Jesus' sermon on the mount] Oh, it's blessed are the MEEK! Oh, I'm glad they're getting something, they have a hell of a time.

    260. Re:Peace by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      If the death penalty as enacted here (with, usually, YEARS for appeals/new evidence, etc) is proportional in any significant way to state-forced MATRICIDE...well, I'm sorry your mother never loved you enough for you to see how unnatural one is when compared to the other.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    261. Re:Peace by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Maybe you live in an area where there's not many Muslims around. Here all the young ones identify more with "gangsta culture" than they do with their religion. Sure, the old people are more devout but old people have a tendency to be.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    262. Re:Peace by delong · · Score: 1

      That's the best you've got? The pledge of allegiance versus a knife in the chest of Theo Van Gogh for making a film? I don't think you have a freaking clue, pal.

    263. Re:Peace by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Benefit of doubt of that? That I didn't knew what it was or doubt of the religion?
      Ok, get it, in Sweden the book is called "Koranen", or well, I guess Qur'an and Koran is quite similar, but I for sure didn't get it.

      Ok, understandable then, still silly, call back a game where one of the characters say "oh god!"? :D

      Oh well, back to drawing Muhammed dogs I guess, on upsidedown turned crosses, WITH BEARDS!

    264. Re:Peace by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      It's been no secret to me that Saudi Arabia has always been a poor country, and it's citizens have become poorer over the decades.

      Beggars hawk bottles of water at intersections. Penniless women huddle in strips of shade outside their crumbling mud-brick houses, begging for money. Many families in the capital are so poor they can't afford electricity. Raw sewage runs through parts of Jidda.

      - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3412.htm

      The princes have treated the country's wealth of oil and minerals as their personal domain and made themselves famous for their extravagant life style. Some princes have accumulated enormous personal wealth; with King Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz, the reigning monarch, topping the list with a personal fortune estimated at $20 billion.

      ...

      A Saudi newspaper speculates that while the unemployment rate is estimated at 20 percent it could be as high as 30 percent. The irony of the situation is that the Saudis employ 6 to 7 million foreign workers, including 3 million maids and drivers.

      And it's obvious why the Saudi's prefer foreign workers:

      current situation: Saudi Arabia is a destination country for workers from South and Southeast Asia who are subjected to conditions that constitute involuntary servitude including being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, non-payment of wages, confinement, and withholding of passports as a restriction on their movement; domestic workers are particularly vulnerable because some are confined to the house in which they work unable to seek help; Saudi Arabia is also a destination country for Nigerian, Yemeni, Pakistani, Afghan, Somali, Malian, and Sudanese children trafficked for forced begging and involuntary servitude as street vendors; some Nigerian women were reportedly trafficked into Saudi Arabia for commercial sexual exploitation.

      - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/sa.html

    265. Re:Peace by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      I'm asking this as an honest question from a non-Muslim:

      Tons of member spokespeople have stood out and strongly separated themselves from the small extremist groups of their respective ideologies.

      • Televangelist money grabbing, priests raping altar boys, the "God hates fags" people, etc, have been strongly spoken against by representative Christians, and there are other examples I've read but can't cite from other religions, Christianity just being the most common around here.
      • Racially, there have been influential whites, blacks, natives, and all sorts of others condemning those of their own race for violent pursuits of racial causes.
      • There is even the pendulum of mudslinging and same-party backlash against those tactics in the political realms.

      Shortly after 9/11 happened, there were a number of journalists who looked for and simply could not find instances where influential representatives of Islam stood up and spoke against the violent extremists of their faith. The conclusion has typically been a perception of "They won't condemn them because they are actually following their religion, not a spin-off perversion of it."

      Again, as an honest question, can you please give any source or indication that Islam at large at least condemns the acts and rationalizations of the violent radicals, or would work to prevent them? We always hear about the violent radicals being such a small minority, but we never hear the rest of Islam actually condemning that behavior, except from an occasional non-representative individual lay person who is typically from a pretty liberal country.

      If there are plenty of examples that you can point out that I simply haven't seen, then great, I can use it to level the playing field when people bring this up. But as it stands right now, it's a very serious implication of general Islam, not just the extremists.

    266. Re:Peace by Frozentech · · Score: 1

      The remedy for this tort is that the man must give her social status and support her financially for the rest of her life. Sure, she gets a rough deal, but it's better than she would have got otherwise.

      Now I understand where my ex's lawyer was coming from.

    267. Re:Peace by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      That was a truly awesome post. I have a sincere admiration for your ability to clearly, comprehensively, accurately, and with great patience and clear wording, lay out the facts. I wish I could do the same - but I get so frustrated with people like the O.P. to whom you were responding; no matter how much rational and coherent argument you present, as you have, they always seem to come back with the same tired and inaccurate hyperbole. Kudos to you for rising above, and keep it up, for those of us who lack the patience to do so ourselves!

    268. Re:Peace by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I'm in ur village, rapin' ur maidens.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    269. Re:Peace by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Another look at the meaning is clearly only stating the obvious: Just as every life has a beginning it also too must have an end. It does not say that everyone must perish in a cruel, agonizing, bloody death. Even the bible has some pretty dark lines surpassing this one.

      As always , it depends on the interpretation. It's not a problem that this is in the Quran , the problem is the people who use it to justify their own evil thoughts.

      And this is indeed the same for the Quran , as for the Bible , or any other form of scripture. You can get out of it whatever you want.

      The problem with religion is that often you are not allowed to interpret it yourself . Instead , the interpretation is imposed on you . And so everyone believes that interpretation , rather than thinking about it.

      Other than that , most holy books are rather cruel , because that was accepted back then , since it was the only way to maintain order.

      This doesn't apply anymore , and you have to take that into account.

      So don't judge the book , judge the people abusing the book , and the masses that remain quiet about this abuse

    270. Re:Peace by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do not think [...] that America is a great Satan

      I do, but it has nothing to do with religion. /partly joking, but America has been doing some very questionable things recently.

    271. Re:Peace by fbjon · · Score: 1

      I think there's quite a few people who would be willing to carry out such sentences, if it weren't for the law prohibiting it.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    272. Re:Peace by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 1

      Substitute 'Mohammed' for 'Jezus' and your comment would have been modded +5 Fatwa.

    273. Re:Peace by fbjon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hardcore atheists define themselves by opposition to religion. Without religion, there would be only agnostics.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    274. Re:Peace by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      we r in ur countris takin ur jobz an ur wimin, lol

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    275. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Moses, while he did indeed commit violence, was not comparable at all to islam's paedophile prophet either.

      Unfortunately for your point, the Medeans attacked first. They were raiding the nomadic "villages" one at a time, as can be plainly read in the bible. They were doing what the muslims are doing today in Darfur. They attacked, took food and women away, leaving many to die. They sold the captured women as slaves.

      The Israelites were not in a position to defend themselves. They were nomadic. Fortifications make no sense for non-sedentary humans. Villages, due to resource limitations could not be made large enough, for long enough to have a decent chance of fighting off the Medean raiding parties.

      Therefore they had to attack, a prospect they could easily win, because they would be able to determine the moment of battle, negating the need to be able to await the Medean forces for months, negating the need for significant supplies, without taking the enormous risk of discovery (in the desert you can, if you're smart, at the right time of day, easily see 100 kilometers. Therefore you can explore your raiding target weeks before the actual attack, completely out of range of any weapon. Trying to hide in the desert is a loser's game, even in 3000 (?) BC). After a successfull attack they'd be able to use Medean resources, large parts of those resources were stolen from them anyway, to maintain the rest of them, and if they attacked Medean villages the fact that these Medeans where much more mobile than they were would not matter. Their numbers dwarfed the numbers of Medeans. The orders Moses gave concerned looting (not allowed). Any children left alone would have to be adopted (not raped, and sold as slaves, like the muslims do, adopted, since then the taking of slaves in war was outlawed, and considered a moral abomination in Christianity/Judaism (neither were in their current forms obviously)). Muslims are still doing it (and *all* muslims did it until at least 1960)

      Just like killing the firstborns of Egypt wasn't a random act but an act that was designed to use the fact that military degrees where inherited in Egypt's army at the time. Killing firstborns, killed the higher degrees of that army. It killed the command structure starting at Farao, paralysed the army for at least several days, I believe the story says they needed 3 days to get a small force operational, it killed the commanders, generals or whatever ranks that were, which made it impossible for Farao to react militarily to the departure of his slaves, until he could reorganize a functioning command structure.

      Violence in the bible is not random. People don't turn to war without reason. Either they want to conquer*, or they want to defend themselves. Nobody goes to war "just because", as is so heavily implied in your post.

      * the note should be made that a number of economic systems, such as socialism (sorry "communism", a totally different thing, *cough*) and nazism in the last century, and the islamic state before that, can only be maintained by constant offensive warfare.In the case of the islamic state constant offensive warfare was necessary to maintain the influx of slaves, who were killed in numbers that defy anyone's moral limits. Constant attacks on native peoples in Afrika maintained the number of the muslim's slaves, in addition to being their only export (the "barbary wars" were started by the muslims because America would no longer buy islam's slaves in trade for American goods, read about it). These state systems do not attempt to boost internal efficiency. They're designed to avoid learning from one's mistakes, to give in to purely emotional responses. When their internal circumstances change, even slightly, they're unwilling to adapt, and therefore have to replace the lost internal resources with booty, so they attack. They have a constant craving for superiority and most realize that being able to kill with impunity is the "ultimate" superiority one can have. The scary thing ? Darwin agrees with this, with the added little detail of course, that they must keep up the killing long enough, while not ignoring their internal problems. Not something these regimes, fortunately, have been very good at.

    276. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      How dare you misquote Lollah's true words.

    277. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I put up the first quote for a reason--Jesus didn't disown the Old Testament. In fact, he said he was there to renew it and strengthen it. The God of Moses is the same as the God of Jesus.

      In fact, he didn't say he was there to renew and strengthen the Old Testament. He said he was there to fulfill the Old Testament. You can read that in your own quote. Also please consider this: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:4).

      So Jesus Christ didn't destroy the law and the prophets (aka the Old Testament), he fulfilled the Old Testament. And he took people out of the Old Testament Law system. Because Christ is the "end of the Law". Some people say that "end" doesn't mean "end", it means "goal". As in "Christ is the goal of the Old Testament Law". But even if you say that end means goal, it still means end as well. Because once you reach your goal, you stop. You don't keep going. That's why it's called a goal. If your goal is to go to the library, once you get to the library, you stop walking.

      Also please consider this: "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:24-25) The book of Galatians is all about the Law and how it applies to Christians. If you read Galatians it should be quite clear that Christians are not under the Old Testament Law.

      Jesus himself didn't preach violence on the same scale as Moses and Muhammad, but the Old Testament is just as much part of Christianity as it is part of Judaism.

      Not really. The Old Testament stuff does not apply to Christians. That's why Christians call it the Old Testament. It's not called "The Current Testament". You might know that in the bible, testament means the same thing as covenant. And it says in Hebrews 8:13: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." You can clearly see what covenant is being referred to by reading the first part of Hebrews 9.

      There are a lot of people who are confused about what the bible says, and a lot of people are spreading confusion about it. But here is a passage from the bible where the meaning is really clear. "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:3-6).

      God wants everybody to be saved. Who can resist God's will in this matter? Can you stop God from saving you, if He wants to save you? It says that Christ gave himself as a ransom for all. Christ has paid the price for everybody. He can do whatever he wants with His people which He bought with his own blood. If Christ gave himself as ransom for all, then he has paid the price of sin for all people. Why would He then put people into hell forever for sin, when He has already paid the punishment for all sin? What would be the point? How is it a victory for Christ for people to be stuck in sin and burning in hell forever? Christ's victory must be complete, and that means that he bought and saved everything and everyone.

      Colossians 1:20: And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

      Christ's mission was to come to Earth and reconcile all things to God. Did He succeed in His mission? If he did, then everything and everybody is reconciled to God. God's will is done, everybody has been saved, all sin has been washed away.

      Please read your quote of Matthew 5:44-45. It says that you should love your enemies, and that by doing so you will be like God. Therefore, God loves even his enemies. Will they tell you that in church?

    278. Re:Peace by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Well, would you say that's an example of christians "compel[ing] others to do what they otherwise would not" or not?

    279. Re:Peace by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Not being a follower, but having read the bible, I always wondered why, despite being referred to as male, "God" got emasculated in the new testament.

      He settled down and had a kid.

      Who's the mother? A marriage is between a man and woman and I don't see how a single dad could have a son without a wife. That's just unchristian.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    280. Re:Peace by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      This week ONLY terrorist attacks. Since monday (sic) muslims (sic) murdered 70 people "for allah (sic)".

      I don't mean to minimize the impact of anyone's death on their friends, family and colleagues, because losing someone is almost always very painful. But in the grand scheme of things, 70 people in a week really isn't an epidemic. There are more than 6 billion people in the world, of whom between 1 and 2 billion are Muslims. Your dreaded "terrorist death rate" probably only exceeds hangnails in severity. The amount of anxiety summoned up over this issue is massively out of proportion.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    281. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's just as much, if not more, bad stuff in the Christian bible. What's your point?

    282. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      The orders Moses gave concerned looting (not allowed). Any children left alone would have to be adopted (not raped, and sold as slaves, like the muslims do, adopted, since then the taking of slaves in war was outlawed, and considered a moral abomination in Christianity/Judaism (neither were in their current forms obviously)). Muslims are still doing it (and *all* muslims did it until at least 1960)

      You may, again, want to reread Numbers 31. I hate to keep coming back to that specific chapter, but...

      Numbers 31:9-12 "And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. ... And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho."

      Numbers 31:32-35 "And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, And threescore and twelve thousand beeves, And threescore and one thousand asses, And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him."

      Looting and slavery. Note, when 'persons' are taken as 'booty'? That's slavery no matter how you cut it. Many of these soldiers would have been unmarried, it wasn't adoption.

      Read Deuteronomy 20:10-14 if you're interested to know what God thinks of enslaving your prisoners of war and conquered peoples.

      Deuteronomy 20:10-14 "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

      It was also considered perfectly normal in the Roman empire where Jesus lived.

      And anyway, I didn't say the Israelites went to war "just because." I said they went to war for one of the reasons you named as being a "horrid crime." Specifically, revenge:

      Numbers 31:1-3 "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian."

      I'm glad, though, that you're willing to use mitigating circumstances to excuse genocide in the Bible, but not to excuse statutory rape in the Qur'an. I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, double standards and hypocrisy just annoy me.

    283. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I _really_ need to go through the Old Testament and get some quotes?

    284. Re:Peace by MenThal · · Score: 1

      The Bible's got incest, rape, mass-murder (and it advocates some mass-murders, too), and all sort of cruelties that were committed by both Jews and Christians--such as any other people in the history of humanity. How 'bout you read the old testament for a change?

      With a premise like that, who'll be satisifed with just reading when you can look at the pictures?

    285. Re:Peace by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      "Insightful? Yes, God says that in the OT, but I don't recall that from NT books. The whole point of the NT is that the ultimate sacrifice was made for us and we no longer have stone our children."

      You'd have a point if wingnuts didn't continually cite the Old Testament to support their bigotry.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    286. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could find similar quotes in the Bible. Have you ever read it? Is the problem with these quotes specifically that they are from the Qur'an? Or just that the subject matter is rather inappropriate for this type of game (sounds perfect for including in a number of First Person Shooters)

    287. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, I'm a muslim.

      lol, who's ignorant and uninformed?

    288. Re:Peace by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      As a (sort of) Christian, I am bugged more by my own group's intolerance and fanaticism too. I think Carl Sagan got a real bee in his bonnet towards the end of his career, but I still appreciate his books, even when I simultaneously wince at some parts of 'Candle in the Dark'. I hope that the way people such as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson behave is because they genuinely think 'saving' you matters to your happiness in the longest run, but I'm far from confident that's true.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    289. Re:Peace by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The death penalty is a power too big for government to hold, but under no cases can it be even remotely defined as "murder".

      Unless its another country doing it? That was sort of my point.

      When Pakistan or Afghanistan or other $evil governments do it we (or at least our media) call it murder without hesitation. What is the fundamental difference when we do it?

      We've freed some dozen death row inmates in the recent past due to -volunteer- efforts to exonerate them... the 'system' failed. If we execute an innocent man, how is that anything but murder? Especially when it comes out that the police deliberately buried the evidence on men they knew were innocent?

      Not to mention the secret prisons, torture, suspension of habeus corpus and so on we've got going on...

      Or our handling of Saddam Hussein. We deliberately set him up to get executed by having him tried in that kangaroo court in Iraq. Had he been tried here, he'd still be alive, perhaps on death row, but there is no way he'd have gone from captured to executed as quickly here.

      Or we could talk about the Salem witch trials...

      My point isn't to say that death row in the US is the equivalent of a serial killer. Its categorically not the same.

      But the veneer of civilization and due process and fail safes that are supposed to ensure that it isn't is not as solid as we like to pretend.

    290. Re:Peace by Joker1980 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fanatics are the problem regardless of their clan. No matter which side of the fence they are on they simply use their beliefs as an excuse to justify an Ignorant pointless existence.

      I personally think we need to stamp out all fanatasism, not just that of the religions the west dislikes.

      --
      Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
    291. Re:Peace by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

      After 9/11, there was a huge outcry of public support for the U.S., in Iran, even in Palestine, where they held candlelight vigils. Unfortunately, the media never bothered to cover it. Why should they? So long as someone out there can be painted as an evil enemy, it sells!

      Anyway, this link was posted by an A/C in this thread, and it is a compilation of what seems to be some of the outpouring of grief and the separation from such acts from many Muslim nations.

      http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

      A search on google yields this as well:

      http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

      I've seen Moryath post this crap before every chance that he gets, and while he's entitled to his own opinion, he needs to realize that he's not an expert of Islam because he can cherry-pick out verses without putting them into context and without realizing WHEN it was written.

      I'm an Atheist and while I don't like any religion, I have enough sense to know that the actions of a minority should not reflect poorly on the whole. Catholicism was especially brutal, and even today, some of its points seem backwards to me, but I would never paint every Catholic as being backwards.

      Religion is and should be a private thing, unless we're talking about the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :)

    292. Re:Peace by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      That's a flawed definition. Let's take the UK as an example - they support the Christian church by granting it tax exmpt status, and allowing some public funding to go to Christian schools.

      The Church of England is an established church here in the UK; they are even represented in the house of Lords.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    293. Re:Peace by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      So... Muslims are going with a closed source model and Christians with a shared-source one? I guess the theistic example of open source in is New Age religions.

      Not just the new age ones, the religion I nominally adhere to is pretty open source; there are hundreds of distros but it must be BSD licensed because there's even a closed source forkfor businesses who feel they need paid support...

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    294. Re:Peace by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly reasonable for politicians to talk about their own religious beliefs. Hell, I'm a fervent supporter of Barack Obama, and he peppers many of his speeches with more religious references than any President since Carter. But attempts to insert any specific religion into law or government are against the very founding principles of this nation.

      No, what is against the founding principles is to force the public into a specific religion especially one that the government itself is a member. But having the government itself have a religion does not automatically force the individual citizens to comply unless laws are enacted which say that if you don't join the same religion then you will be punished. That is what the first immigrants ran away from and what they wanted to prevent happening again here in this land.

      Who's advocating stopping someone else from practicing their religion?

      Well you said you wanted to remove religion from the public sector. That obviously doesn't stop someone from practicing or supporting their religion in the private sector but by definition it does prevent them from doing so in public.

      I say the Pledge of Allegiance proudly, in its form prior to being changed in the 1950s to include "under God."

      That wasn't the question. The question was whether you would say it if you didn't feel you should actually pledge allegiance to this country thereby disagreeing with the pledge itself. If you disagree with the majority religion and want religion banned from public visibility then I would think you would be at least consistent and want the pledge banned for those who don't feel they should have to publically state they pledge allegiance to the flag. We wouldn't want someone to feel offended if they weren't happy with the U.S> gov't on any given day and were forced to pledge allegiance to the country or even listen to others who do. The other students would be offending the ears of the others. How dare they!

      As a matter of fact we do. That's why I asked the question about the ACLU. These are some cases argued by that most secular of secularist organizations.

      You conveniently list those situations in which the ACLU has actually supported religion but neglect to list anything (articles, court decisions, etc.) for situations in which the ACLU has yet to get involved but in which students' right to state/display/uphold anything about their religion is prohibited or, at best, questioned forcefully with threats of punishment. By sheer fact the ACLU got into a court battle also means your stories are easy to find but for those battles which don't get any media coverage (especially if it is about Christians) then you would be hard pressed to even know those problems even exist. One example being the murdering of Christian civilians in Iraq by Islamic extremists which I have yet to see in any media coverage on TV.

      Other way around. Until you are forced to stop your religious practices, no harm done. Ruling that a judge may not place a monument of the Ten Commandments on public property, declaring it (inaccurately) to be the basis of United States law, conflicts with no one's ability to practice their religion. All it does is prevent the establishment of a de facto state religion.

      Not quite. I'm already having my religion silenced in various forms due to your self-given right to not be offended by someone whose views differ from yours. You seem to have trouble believing the government is capable of helping citizens support their religion without actually enforcing any state religion. I don't know the details but I know that churches can get tax exemptions. Are you against those by chance, possibly using the rationale that you somehow feel that you must join a church which qualifies for those exemptions? Just because a gov't aids a religion does not mean it is enforcing that religion on others. I'm not sure ho

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    295. Re:Peace by g8oz · · Score: 1

      That says more about you then them. You should get out more.

    296. Re:Peace by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

      Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?

      I don't know, but then again, "Do you hate homosexuals?" isn't really the best conversation starter with a new friend.

      Well that's your problem! You're supposed to phrase it "Gosh, don't you hate homosexuals?" so that way they think you're on their side :P

    297. Re:Peace by g8oz · · Score: 1

      That says more about the chaos and poverty in these societies than about the religon of Islam you bigoted fool.

    298. Re:Peace by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Are you joking?

      Young people use EVERYTHING - religion, sexuality, political affiliation, vegetarianism, etc. - simply to get attention and feel a sense of belonging.

      They identify with something, anything, because they think it will give them an identity. Young people struggle to define themselves, and often seek to avoid a life of boredom and sameness. The easiest way for them to avoid ending up like the masses is to be "different", regardless of whether or not that's who they really are.

      It's usually during the year backpacking through Europe (or whatever cliche bullshit they end up doing) that they realize:

      You're not special or unique.
      There's always going to be someone better than you.
      You need a real job to pay the bills.

    299. Re:Peace by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Few, non-weird, churches make their females cover their heads any more.

      I'm trying to think of a church (or temple, or mosque or synagogue) that isn't weird. It's not happening for me as they all appear to have there own unique "weird" attributes. It seems however as this statement was meant more as a Flame towards people who prefer a more normal lifestyle.

    300. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      No, what is against the founding principles is to force the public into a specific religion especially one that the government itself is a member. But having the government itself have a religion does not automatically force the individual citizens to comply unless laws are enacted which say that if you don't join the same religion then you will be punished. That is what the first immigrants ran away from and what they wanted to prevent happening again here in this land.

      The Establishment Clause was inserted in the First Amendment specifically to prevent the establishment of any religion as the official state religion. The United States has no official state religion, never has, and never should.

      Well you said you wanted to remove religion from the public sector. That obviously doesn't stop someone from practicing or supporting their religion in the private sector but by definition it does prevent them from doing so in public.

      I didn't say anyone should be prevented from practicing their religion in public. That's not the goal of secularism. The goal is to prevent the government from favoring any one religion over any others--that's it, pure and simple. As long as you aren't breaking any laws, you can feel free to preach in the middle of the town square if you want.

      That wasn't the question. The question was whether you would say it if you didn't feel you should actually pledge allegiance to this country thereby disagreeing with the pledge itself. If you disagree with the majority religion and want religion banned from public visibility then I would think you would be at least consistent and want the pledge banned for those who don't feel they should have to publically state they pledge allegiance to the flag. We wouldn't want someone to feel offended if they weren't happy with the U.S> gov't on any given day and were forced to pledge allegiance to the country or even listen to others who do. The other students would be offending the ears of the others. How dare they!

      Again, nobody's saying prayer should be banned. We're saying it should a) not be mandatory, and b) not be led by anyone acting as a representative of national, state, or local government in their position as that representative. So long as they're engaging in their religion as a private citizen and not a public servant, there's no problem. So your question above is awful silly.

      You conveniently list those situations in which the ACLU has actually supported religion but neglect to list anything (articles, court decisions, etc.) for situations in which the ACLU has yet to get involved but in which students' right to state/display/uphold anything about their religion is prohibited or, at best, questioned forcefully with threats of punishment. By sheer fact the ACLU got into a court battle also means your stories are easy to find but for those battles which don't get any media coverage (especially if it is about Christians) then you would be hard pressed to even know those problems even exist. One example being the murdering of Christian civilians in Iraq by Islamic extremists which I have yet to see in any media coverage on TV.

      I'm sorry--you're saying that because the ACLU hasn't represented every oppressed Christian in the country, that somehow invalidates the many that they have represented? Maybe those other oppressed faithful didn't sue, or didn't ask the ACLU for help?

      Not quite. I'm already having my religion silenced in various forms due to your self-given right to not be offended by someone whose views differ from yours.

      You're still the only person anywhere in these threads to suggest anyone has a "right" not to be offended. I certainly never suggested that.

      Are you a representative of national, state, or local government? Are you speaking as a public official with the power of your office behind you? No? Then you can say

    301. Re:Peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How many muslim's do you know? How many countries have you known them in? How many different age groups, races, social classes have they belonged to?

      A few, mostly young. Some Egyptians, some Bahraini, some Tatar.

      You think that by talking to a handful of muslim's you have a grasp on the entirety of the beliefs of 1 billion+ people?

      No, I only use my observations to confirm my conclusions from other sources.

      I am a non-homophobe muslim. My wife is highly educated and an equal partner in my marriage, she does not wear a burkha or even a scarf. I do not think Jews are evil, that America is a great Satan, or that infidels should be slaughtered en masse.

      Do not presume to think that I'm a non-practicing muslim either. I've never had alcohol, or eaten meats I'm not allowed to. I fast, and I pray. I contribute to my mosque, I pay zakah, and have been for umrah several times. I hope to go for Hajj soon. Insha'allah.

      I'm glad you're a reasonable man. Do tell, though - are you living in Turkey, or are you a successful immigrant to the West?

      Also, please consider this. One of those Muslims I've been aquainted with was not just a homophobe, but a very open "wish-we-could-stone-them" one. Ironically, I've met him in a Western university. Now, when asked to explain why he was so hostile, he redirected me to the Hadith such as, "Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut, kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.". As another Muslim, how would you explain and justify your disagreement with him on this subject, given this scriptural backing he claims to have? What would you cite in counter-argument?

    302. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      I'm glad, though, that you're willing to use mitigating circumstances to excuse genocide in the Bible, but not to excuse statutory rape in the Qur'an. I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, double standards and hypocrisy just annoy me.

      You will forgive me to doubt the truth of that statement.

      All your statements basically parse as "it's the same" even though it's not actually saying the same thing. You "have to think this and add to it". Also there are factual errors (the Roman empire had yet to conquer it's first egg cell in 3500 BC when Moses gave those orders). You're just spouting data you think is correct but really isn't.

      Furthermore you add that you agree that in the quran there isn't any thinking required. You agree that it calls directly for genocide, and rape, something which has to be "interpreted" out of the bible (which Christians managed not to do for, oh, 2000 years and counting).

      Yet you agree that not only is there no imagination necessary *at all* to read massive divinely and morally "sanctioned" genocide and rape in the quran, the history of the muslims is more than filled to the brim with incidents where they actually DO it.

      And since when is it "hypocrisy" to suggest that different religions are ... (tadaaa) different. It is a well established fact that religious genocides and rape of other-thinkers, massacring dissidents and gays is perfectly allowed, and not just allowed but forced in sharia law (and forbidden in canon law, you *do* know what canon law is, right ?). Therefore, there isn't really any discussion as much as soundbites from your side that count on very dubious interpretations of the bible, which seem to be unique to non-christians willing, out of pure selfeless devotion to others, point out the "hypocrisy" of people who doubt their morality.

      Do you seriously think atheists aren't hypocrites ? Blab yourself out of this one : since you believe in Darwin, whose central tenet is "only the fittest survive", isn't it a virtue (accelerating improvement of humanity and all) to kill a homeless person, barbecue him and feed his flesh to your children ? Clearly you're destroying an unfit person to help people become fitter. That person was going to die helpless anyway, so really you served the "greater good" ? (And if you start blabbing like before "everybody knows why" , "evil hypocrites", you're not going to score many points).

      Btw : can you explain to me what, exactly, is the reason not to rape others in atheist philosophy ? I mean if you're not going to get caught by police officers "enforcing Christian morality" I mean. If you can just get away with it, in a dark alley, you can rape a woman, and there's a chance she will carry and raise the child ? It seems to me that said rape would be beneficial. Using only arguments from atheist moral philosophers, explain to me what the moral problem is with this rape ?

      Of course, if you don't have an answer, you're at least as hypocrit as anyone you accuse of such. (and the problem obviously is that ANY ruleset, will either be illogical and dogmatic or inconsistent, meaning that the adage that a good lawyer can talk his way out of any crime is unfortunately true, if it wasn't for the ideology of judges).

    303. Re:Peace by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      You may be an exception, but I have never heard someone claim that no part of the old law applies at all, but rather that parts of the old law no longer apply, those parts chosen being based on those that that individual still feels are wrong. Given that very, very little is proclaimed to be wrong by Jesus himself, it becomes more and more difficult to explain the "Christian" outrage against various things (such as gay marriage, which always seems to involve quoting Leviticus, for some reason).

      Actually, Leviticus is a good example. People will quote it being "Abomination" for man to lay with mankind as he would with womankind, but claim it doesn't count when the very same word is used to describe the act of eating that which dwells in the waters but hath not fins nor scales (IOW, shellfish).

    304. Re:Peace by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      You had said that "All religions are not created equal, and Islam is a violent, authoritarian creed." and "The New Testament overrules the Old Testament." Presumably you were intending to suggest that Christianity was not a violent and authoritarian creed, and to state that one could not use the Old Testament to demonstrate such. So I provided a list of various examples of cruelty and violence from the New testament, as those are necessarily still in effect.

    305. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      You will forgive me to doubt the truth of that statement.

      Which statement, that I'm neither Christian nor Muslim? I'm an atheist, but think what you like.

      All your statements basically parse as "it's the same" even though it's not actually saying the same thing. You "have to think this and add to it". Also there are factual errors (the Roman empire had yet to conquer it's first egg cell in 3500 BC when Moses gave those orders). You're just spouting data you think is correct but really isn't.

      Then please, feel free to correct me. BTW, the quote was "the Roman empire where Jesus lived." By around 30 A.D. when the Gospels take place, the Roman Empire had conquered many egg cells, and was in control of the land of Israel, called Judea by its contemporaries.

      Furthermore you add that you agree that in the quran there isn't any thinking required. You agree that it calls directly for genocide, and rape, something which has to be "interpreted" out of the bible (which Christians managed not to do for, oh, 2000 years and counting).

      I do agree that the Qur'an has a lot of bad stuff in it, yes. I don't agree that you need to "interpret" the Bible to find stuff that's just as bad in it. The genocide, rape, and slavery in the Bible is absolutely and perfectly clear.

      Yet you agree that not only is there no imagination necessary *at all* to read massive divinely and morally "sanctioned" genocide and rape in the quran, the history of the muslims is more than filled to the brim with incidents where they actually DO it.

      And the history of Christianity isn't? Are we forgetting the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the Troubles in Ireland and England?

      And since when is it "hypocrisy" to suggest that different religions are ... (tadaaa) different.

      How can you remove a splinter from your brother's eye when there is a beam in your own eye? Thou hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, then you can see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

      It is a well established fact that religious genocides and rape of other-thinkers, massacring dissidents and gays is perfectly allowed, and not just allowed but forced in sharia law (and forbidden in canon law, you *do* know what canon law is, right ?).

      Canon law was an invention of the Catholic Church, and most Protestant churches don't even follow it. If you're going to be comparing Christianity to Islam by pulling verses from the Qur'an, then you'd better pull the verses from the Bible which say gays, disobedient children, and rape victims (among many others) should be stoned to death.

      For the record, the rules of warfare under Islamic law include the injunction by Abu Bakr:

      Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

      Of course the lesson to pull from this is that there are some verses in the Qur'an that say genocide is okay, some that say it isn't; some verses in the Bible say genocide is okay, some say that it isn't; later laws established by the religious leaderships of both religions have added and taken away moral restrictions; and some people of both religions are absolute nutcases who will twist their religion to justify their sociopathic behavior, while the vast majority of practitioners are perfectly peaceful.

      Therefore, there isn't really any discussion as much as soundbites from your side that count

    306. Re:Peace by lgw · · Score: 1

      True enough, but as long as the leadership of Islam does not publicly revile and repudiate terrorism (as the Pope does with the IRA), how can we not see Islam in the same bucket with the KKK and the world's various Nazi parties? Endorsing evil is evil, regardless of religion.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    307. Re:Peace by Bishop+Rook · · Score: 1

      Not really. The Old Testament stuff does not apply to Christians. That's why Christians call it the Old Testament. It's not called "The Current Testament". You might know that in the bible, testament means the same thing as covenant. And it says in Hebrews 8:13: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." You can clearly see what covenant is being referred to by reading the first part of Hebrews 9.

      Let's look at the very next two verses from Matthew, then.

      Matthew 5:17-19 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

      Jesus says that the law is to be held "till heaven and earth pass" and says that anyone who breaks the commandments of the law "shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven."

      I never claimed there weren't inconsistencies in the Bible. :P

      That being said, your brand of Christianity is definitely one I can get behind, if I actually believed it. It seems like the most important distilled message Jesus carried was "no one can be free of sin on their own power, therefore it is hypocrisy to judge others' sinfulness. Stop being so damned self-righteous. Also, be good to one another." I only wish more self-avowed Christians followed that conception rather than the conception that says to be as self-righteous and judgmental as possible.

      If more Christians followed your philosophy, I'd consider Christianity to be as harmless and admirable a religion as, say, Buddhism.

    308. Re:Peace by jadm · · Score: 1

      No, I am saying that Islam is an inherently inflexible, violent, authoritarian Total Belief System. Christianity is a religion with a violent past, like most religions, but modern interpretations have pushed the majority of believers beyond that mindset.
      My attack is against Islam, which precludes "interpretation" of any sort, since the quran is the "word of god", unchangeable, eternal, blablabla, and pretty much any attempt to do so is somehow punishable by death.
      Go look for yourself. Find a list of attacks and violent incidents directly attributable to Christianity over the past 10 years. Then find the same list attributable to Islam. There really is no comparison, because one will be a list of violent acts committed by actual extremists, whereas the other will be a list of fanatical barbarians trying to attack Rome for the sin of existence.

    309. Re:Peace by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      There is a significant group that not only believe in the teachings of books such as Leviticus, but they believe everything there is the literal truth.

      Do they shave or trim their beard? (forbidden by Leviticus) Do they wear clothing of more than one fabric (e.g. poly-cotton)? (forbidden) Do they follow the hygiene rules? Do they keep Saturday holy? Basically, do they behave like Hassidic Jews (who I can at least respect for being consistent with what they claim to believe)? If not, then they don't believe in Leviticus being still in force, and probably haven't even bothered to spend the half-hour reading it.

    310. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      *sigh*, here we go again

      The ethical foundation I work from is secular humanism, which recognizes that human beings are interconnected, that all human beings have value, and that we all have rights to life and dignity. The ethical philosophy I agree with most is Immanuel Kant's formulation of deontology, which basically codifies the Golden Rule--act in a way such that, if your actions were codified as law, society would benefit. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

      That's a dogmatic ruleset (and not a very well defined one), which is equally "loose sanded" as even the most ridiculous natural religion. Believing in the flying spaghetti monster is equally rational (ie. not at all rational) as your specific dogma. Also, to be honest, you might as well respect the 10 commandments, the difference would be tiny. In other words, you have a Christian ideology without the person of Jesus named. You have a very, very immature religion (does not tell you how to act outside of your own experiences, in other words it only tells you if the past was moral, not how to act morally in the future).

      So that brings point 1 : if this is your "rules to live by" then you lose rationality (which is 1 point that's always thrown against christians, that they're not "rational" for believing in God). Any atheist that claims he's more rational, given this ruleset (or any acceptable ruleset really, try formulating a few of them) is one of those most hated of things : a hypocrite.

      That, obviously, is not the limit of the problems with this ideology. It has a very big "natural" flaw : it hasn't stood the test of time, according to darwin (obviously an essential part of any atheist ideology) the only real test for anything in the real world. Furthermore, it has failed quite a few tests of time that history offered it.

      Furthermore, it has a theoretical weakness : you do not have a way of dealing with people who do not respect your dogma, that so absolutely needs it's values to be embedded in a very large majority of the society you live in to be even remotely liveable. Your dogma would go extinct in a heartbeat in a muslim society, for the simple reason that it requires a pareto-efficient society (it will get blasted very quickly if there is a group, even a relatively small one, that collectively attacks your group).

      In Christianity this problem is solved by discriminating against non-believers (not attacking them, but not involving them in their society unless absolutely necessary). In other words : a Christian society will try to isolate itself from non-Christian societies, thereby preserving the option to act pareto-efficient amongst eachother. Holding people to a standard of non-discrimination against, even "mostly" unreliable people, is a recipe for destroying our society.

      In islam this problem is solved by not being pareto-efficient in the first place. This, however has the large disadvantage that muslim states cannot survive, except through constant expansion (the Roman empire had the same limitation : if it stopped conquering new ground and growing it's population for even 10 years, it was all over, the same is true for islam : block it's expansion for even a tiny little while and it dies. This obviously means that at one point, no matter how successfull the ideology is, it will die, after having destroyed many, many, many others)

      Suppose you have a pareto efficient group, that is pareto efficient in a non-discriminatory manner ("unless you're a racist" you'll agree to this, right ?) against people who are less than pareto efficient. The economically efficient choice for any individual is to attack the pareto-efficient group, knowing that no retribution will follow (since retribution can only directly cause more damage to society than the theft by itself, thereby making retribution unjustified). In other words : stealing and raping members of the pareto-efficient group is the most effective (and certainly the easiest) survival strategy for any groups that do

    311. Re:Peace by tempestdata · · Score: 1

      Your observations combined with your ignorance of the subject are particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias. Once again, you show yourself to be going down the path of all prejudice. You sound like you'd likely be a closet racist/sexist too. Using your method of reaching conclusions, you could point out how minorities makeup a higher percentage of the prison populations of the united states than over all population ratios would suggest. So blacks and hispanics are criminals? Also they earn significantly less than whites... so they are lazy too? You give your powers of deduction too much credit. Like I said before, you technique is that used by most prejudiced people.

      I'm not living in turkey, I was brought up in the middle east till the age of 18 and I've been living in the united states since then.

      Do you know what a Hadith is? Do you know all the sects and sub sects of Islam are? Just as christianity has hundreds of sub divisions, so does Islam. Yes, that homophobic person you met considers himself a muslim just as much as I consider myself one. In the exact way that a roman catholic considers himself a christian in the same way a Mormon does.

      So you want o know how I justify my disagreement with HIS scriptures? Simple. He believes in those scriptures and I dont. He is obviously a Sunni muslim, since he beleives in Hadith. Shi'aa muslim do NOT believe in Hadith.

      Let me educate you on what Hadith are. They are the 'claimed' sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. Sunni beleive they are accurate and unaltered and so should be followed. Shi'aa believe they have been made up and manipulated over the years and should not be treated as scripture that must be followed.

      If you choose to overcome your prejudice you can educate yourself some more on the subject by just reading a few wikipedia articles on the bits I have mentioned here.

      Ofcourse there is the possibility your confirmation bias will kick in again to help protect your previous conclusions.

      Either way, I know the world is filled with people like you. I do not hope to change your views, I just intend to stand up for mine.

      Good luck.

      --
      - Tempestdata
    312. Re:Peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Using your method of reaching conclusions, you could point out how minorities makeup a higher percentage of the prison populations of the united states than over all population ratios would suggest.

      Well, they do, don't they?

      So blacks and hispanics are criminals? Also they earn significantly less than whites... so they are lazy too?

      Neither are inherently criminal due to their race/ethnicity, of course, but both tend to be those in a present-day ethnical/cultural/economical mix-up in the US. It's a self-feeding circle in which ethnicity certainly does play a part insofar as it is used by many members of those groups as a factor to strongly self-identify around and separate themselves from the rest of the society.

      In case you haven't noticed, I'm also not claiming that Muslims are inherently backwards (though, unlike blacks & hispanics ethnicity, I do consider present-day interpretation of Islam a strong factor in why Islamic countries tend to be regressive rather than progressive).

      I'm not living in turkey, I was brought up in the middle east till the age of 18 and I've been living in the united states since then.

      That's one score for the power of deduction, then ;)

      So you want o know how I justify my disagreement with HIS scriptures? Simple. He believes in those scriptures and I dont. He is obviously a Sunni muslim, since he beleives in Hadith. Shi'aa muslim do NOT believe in Hadith.

      That's great. Should I take this statement of your as, essentially, a claim that all faithful Sunni adherents are homophobic? Given that ~80% of all Muslims in the world are Sunni, well...

    313. Re:Peace by giuda · · Score: 1

      and I'm a PC

    314. Re:Peace by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      Can you point me at the equivalent of the New Testament in Islam that would discard the laws such as stoning for adultery or beheading for apostasy, or name a mainstream Islamic school of law that considers those laws to not be in force today? Have you ever met a non-homophobe Muslim?

      Yes, I've met quite a few non-homophobic muslims. No, your troll is fail about discarding laws: the Hadith helps each mosque and teacher interpret the Qu'ran but is not about discarding laws nor is about revealing a new contract between humanity and the deity asociated with the religion (as NT does). There's a small, vocal minority who terrorise a peaceful majority of Muslims with talk about violence, stonings in justabout every tradition within Islam. The Sufis are reputed to be the most mystical and peaceful; the Sunnis and Shias (and each branch under these traditions) each has a spectrum of peaceable and violent people. I invite you to consider the plausibility of your spectrum of extremism applying to another faith group than Christianity.

    315. Re:Peace by EchaniDrgn · · Score: 1

      I probably should have used the word "instance" rather than time to denote that it wasn't a deadline issue, but a certain occasion.

    316. Re:Peace by brkello · · Score: 1

      Disapproving of someone's action and having a phobia about it are two different things. Not saying it is right, but I am sure there are plenty of people who think being gay is wrong and aren't homophobic about it.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    317. Re:Peace by brkello · · Score: 1

      I've figured you out. You are just using the hatred some Muslims feel towards homosexuals to justify your own hatred of Muslims. You are just as bad.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    318. Re:Peace by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Much better.

    319. Re:Peace by Kortalh · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the name is atheism, not antitheism. Thus, atheists are not opposed to religion, they are without religion.

      Agnostics, on the other hand, are unconvinced in either direction. If religion did not exist, there would be nothing for them to be unconvinced about. Thus, without religion, there would be only atheists.

    320. Re:Peace by fbjon · · Score: 1

      That's a different way of defining atheism, both are valid.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    321. Re:Peace by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      How does your links expand on what has been said?

      I am curious if I am not following somewhere.

      I got from the link:
      Singular
      atheism

      Plural
      atheisms

      atheism (plural atheisms)

            1. Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods.
            2. The belief that there are no gods, the denial of the existence of God or gods.

      [edit]

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    322. Re:Peace by fbjon · · Score: 1
      I was using the second sense, denial of existence, i.e. "active" atheism if you will. Kortahl used the first sense of the word, which is simply not believing anything in the first place, which isn't really far from agnosticism, I'd say.

      Anyway, my point is, with or without religion, nobody can be sure whether supernatural god(s) exist.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    323. Re:Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh*, here we go again.

      *Sigh*, here we go again. You're a flagrant and unabashed Christian bigot here on Slashdot- probably in your personal life too-, your ethical, political and religious argumentation are sophomoric and ignorant on top of closed-minded and wrong-headed, and you are in no position to condescend, so you need to drop your impudent attitude. Either interact with your fellow humans as if they and their opinions had intrinsic dignity and mattered, or don't interact with them.

      ["secular humanism" is] a dogmatic ruleset...

      From a guy who spent last week (or the one prior?) trying to abuse ZFC to argue that *all* such [moral] rulesets are necessarily dogmatic, that is a disingenuous accusation, above and beyond its falsity.

      (and not a very well defined one)...

      1) the term is recent, but the ideas to which it applies are deeply tied to classical and modern ethics, which are quite well-defined after millennia of scrutiny
      2) your ignorance of the subject matter is not a basis for refuting either its efficacy or morality, or responding in an informed way at all
      3) despite (1) and (2), you have managed to write ~3 pages of putative refutation aimed "at" this target, after claiming it is a *non*-target in the present post alone

      Believing in the flying spaghetti monster is [not at all rational]...

      That's its point; it's caricature, illustrating by exaggerating the essential features that belief without and certainly in spite of evidence is irrational. Your comparison of "belief" in a moral system's efficacy (opining that it is indeed moral) to "belief" that some deity, pasta-oriented or otherwise, is part of reality is equivocating on the word "belief". They're distinct kinds of propositions: the former is meta-ethical (epistemological, arguably), while the latter is ontological.

      Believing in the flying spaghetti monster is [as irrational] as your specific dogma.

      Humanism does not require irrational ontological beliefs, and therefore is not dogmatic in any sense in which the word "dogma" is used in modern English. It seems you realize your own ontological beliefs are dogmatic and you seek to convince others that all beliefs are dogmatic so that your own position doesn't seem any the worse. Thus the dig that belief [in the existence of the] FSM: you attempt to drag down your opponent's position until it looks no less unreasonable than your own.

      ...you might as well respect the 10 commandments, the difference would be tiny.

      That statement is false; it reflects that:
      1) you are simply unfamiliar with the moral system you assail
      2) you are unfamiliar with the scope with which it's possible (and customary) to specify ethical systems
      3) perhaps as a consequence of (2), you are uncritical of the "10 commandments" to the extent you don't realize how limited is their scope (they range from prohibition of individual, limited acts to petty, ritualistic theological imperatives)

      If you had mentioned the ethic of reciprocity, you would be correct in a hollow sense. Christian theology doesn't have a monopoly on this, of course; it is much older and more widespread than Christianity. The argument would be tautological, because humanism embodies it. That it should show up wherever humans are thinking, and certainly in all their religions and moral systems, is evidence that it is indeed in some sense categorical. Humanism is the name for this grain, freed from the chaff of religion. So your next statement is a real facepalm:

      In other words, you have a Christian ideology without the person of Jesus named.

      In other words, you have a humanist ideology with some incidental, untenable, and parochial theology grafted on. Please consider the irony of this, and

    324. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      And you complain that my post was insulting ? Clearly you don't actually practice the golden rule (which obviously would make you answer very politely and without using words like indoctrination, monopoly, testosterone overload, ...). So once again I accuse you of massive hypocrisy, which interestingly is the one thing you claim to be better in than Christians ... Not that you hadn't shown it before, but right now you're resorting to outright namecalling in defense of your terribly weak point.

      Also, to once again state the obvious, if I'm a "young male with testosterone overload" (heh, once, yes, I miss those days) , might I inform you that there are a hell of a lot of "us" around, and that you're going to have to deal with us anyway. And to be perfectly frank, old geezers with their "stable feelings" don't interest "us" much. Except that they're easy to knock down and take their wallets, of course. Their running skills, the only thing that might recover said wallets, are likewise sub-par.

      Also you obviously haven't looked around recently, because missing the link between pacifism and the supposedly "secular humanism" ideology is beyond mere blindness.

      But please, explain to me how your ideology is not dogmatic, you are so anxious to do so, yet always forget to actually do it. If it's not dogmatic that must mean (and I really mean "must") every last rule is what I want it to be, because otherwise, it is merely another fixed, unchangeable and enforced rule. That is, of course, dogmatic. If it were truly rational, I, also a rational being, would have no doubts about it at all. Therefore, please, explain how it is rational for me not to attack the weak (as a sidenote : if Darwin's true, wouldn't that be a stupid move ? Won't the weak die out whether or not I attack tem, therefore making this act at least morally neutral)

      So answer the question you keep talking around, or state that you do not have an answer :

      WHY do I have to respect others ? I don't much care to, since I am quite capable of overpowering most everyone I dislike. WHY don't I, from your secular humanist perspective. Only rational responses please.

      Because your whole posts, entirely too long, boring and tedious to read, managed to avoid answering this question. Unless you give a truly rational answer (an answer that is rational from MY perspective, including obviously the oversized ego, and the assumption that I can steal more than I can earn, and protect that once stolen. Since this is an assumption (clearly shared by more than enough people in America, as theft figures illustrate) you do not get to attack it).

      I ask you the simple question : rationally illustrate why attacking the weak for booty (or women, or ...) is wrong. After all, as long as I'm one of the few that do it, it is even in the long term very beneficial for me. That it's bad for "society" I know, I don't care. Even if many do it, it remains beneficial, at least in the short term, mostly also in the longer term.

      Of course if you're answer is "because they're human", then we all know just how rational it is. So let's see your answer, I'm terribly curious to see if you've actually got a consistent ideology, and you just missed a few essential points in the previous posts ... or of course that you're simply ... but let's not talk about that.

      (everybody knows secular humanism doesn't have an answer to this, but hey why don't you try, I mean every year some 500 books come out with the same still-as-broken-as-last-year arguments. They so want to believe it works, even when it fails before their eyes again and again).

      But to illustrate the utter brokenness of your arguments, let's, just for desert, illustrate just the level of your soundbites, and just how related they are to reality :

      It's not a religion. It's lack of religion. I don't collect stamps, but not collecting them is *not* a hobby of mi

    325. Re:Peace by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      It depends on the Muslim society. Secular Muslim societies tolerate benign presence as well as secular Christian, Hindu, or any other secular society. To which you might reply "well, not true Muslim societies, as Islam mandates the universal conversion to Islam." indeed, this is theologically defensible in Islam. But it is the same with Christianity; for centuries Christians spread religion around the world at the point of a sword or gun before the largely Christian societies of the west learned, only in the last centuries or so, to ignore the immoral acts mandated by their theology at least to the point that holders of dissenting opinion could survive in their midst. Muslim societies were once that way (during the Dark Age in Europe, ironically), and are, on the whole with some highly visible but non-representative outliers, becoming more tolerant again.

      This is cute. First you use the term moral in a relative way, when you're talking about islam. Massacring atheists is not "defensible in islam", it's MORAL in islam. Likewise excluding atheists is moral in christianity.

      Of course making the sentence use the word consistently destroys all meaning in the sentence :

      It depends on the Muslim society. Secular Muslim societies tolerate benign presence as well as secular Christian, Hindu, or any other secular society. To which you might reply "well, not true Muslim societies, as Islam mandates the universal conversion to Islam." indeed, this is moral for muslims (to attack atheists to extermination). But it is the same with Christianity; for centuries Christians spread religion around the world at the point of a sword or gun before the largely Christian societies of the west learned, only in the last centuries or so, to ignore the moral acts mandated by their theology at least to the point that holders of dissenting opinion could survive in their midst. Muslim societies were once that way (during the Dark Age in Europe, ironically), and are, on the whole with some highly visible but non-representative outliers, becoming more tolerant ("moral in secular humanism", except tolerance to christians, obviously) again.

      Note that using words consistently once again reveals the difference between the ideologies that your words attempted to mask. Once the sentence is cleared up the utter ridiculousness of the word "same" comes to the surface, and the fact that you try to pass off parts of your own morals as "universal" when they're really not anywhere near universal. In fact, outside of Christian circles, they're almost unheard of (like your googling of "library of alexandria" will reveal).

      During the dark age in Europe muslims were tolerant. this is a joke right ? "Library of Alexandria" why don't you look that up.

      Of course by even the standards of Christians during the dark age they weren't tolerant at all.

    326. Re:Peace by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      interesting.

      I still think you would have those that believe in a higher power, and those that don't.

      Of the ones that do, some would believe it to be something such as Einstein's god, and others believe it to be a super-natural God or spirits.

      Some people would probably be torn between the last one, and one of the others.

      This still clearly defines atheism, agnosticism, and theism.

      All of this without religion to organize the thoughts of the theists.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    327. Re:Peace by chrb · · Score: 1

      Also, please consider this. One of those Muslims I've been aquainted with was not just a homophobe, but a very open "wish-we-could-stone-them" one. Ironically, I've met him in a Western university.

      Funnily enough, I've had this same discussion with a Christian medical student at a well known British university. This guy (who apart from his religious views was actually a decent person) said that he wouldn't treat homosexuals, even if he found some in a car crash and they would otherwise die, because the Bible says it's a crime against God and they should be put to death anyway. Religion, eh?

    328. Re:Peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Eh? I'm a homophobe myself (I find the practice itself revolting, much like coprophilia, for example). I just consider it my personal, utterly irrational preference, and don't let it guide me in the way I conduct my business, vote, or otherwise behave in public. It doesn't prevent me from supporting gay marriage, for example, and I certainly do not advocate capital (or any other kind of) punishment for homosexuality - unlike.

      That said, I do not hate Muslims either. I pity them for their religion that shackles them (just like Christianity did not all that long ago in the Western world). When I hear another story about a woman stoned in Iran for adultery, I always keep in mind that she, herself, was also Muslim - and, in fact, might have considered the punishment appropriate. That is probably the worst part of it...

    329. Re:Peace by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      Redundant? Someone control these mods!

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    330. Re:Peace by Doggabone · · Score: 1

      Toumani Diabate speaks about the song's meaning - http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/10/21/little-big-planet-musician-defends-song-to-mtv/:

      In the song, "Tapha Niang" (taken from the World Circuit/Nonesuch album "Boulevard de lâ(TM)Independance"), the singer, Moussa Diabate, adapts a traditional Malian song about the death of a much-loved hippopotamus who has been shot by a white hunter.

      In the original song (Mali Sadjo) the griots of the village sing about how difficult it is to be separated from your loved one in death.

      The singer adapts this song in âoeTapha Niangâ to lament the death of his brother Mustapha, who died very young as a child.

      Moussa draws on the excerpts from the Koran to console him & help him overcome his bereavement...

      It's a terrific album, by the way. I've had the privilege of listening to Toumani Diabate perform - he is one of the most magnificent musicians I have ever heard. His instrument is the kora, a harp-like instrument, the 71st generation griot of his family line, and a devout, peaceful Muslim who has never faced controversy for his inclusion of passages from the Qu'uran before. I don't think that any of that is particularly significant, but it's possibly relevant to the discussion and a little interesting given how misinformed many of the responses are.

    331. Re:Peace by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      I'm saying you can find plenty of timeframes in which worse was done in the name of Christianity. Using "the last 10 years or so" basically amounts to saying "don't look at Christianity's bloody period when you compare us".

      There are, fortunately a good number of moderate Muslims who don't actually condone that sort of thing, much like you have with Christianity. You also have plenty of Christian literalists and extremists, and the holy text (which is also purportedly the Word of God) is filled with more than it's share of unpleasantness, and is also generally inflexible, violent and authoritarian.

      Basically, I don't see why we should compare violent fundamentalist Muslims against moderate Christians, but rather that we should be either comparing moderates to moderates, or violent fundamentalists to violent fundamentalists.

    332. Re:Peace by jadm · · Score: 1

      Because "violent fundamentalist Muslims" are the mainstream of Islam, whereas "plenty of Christian literalists and extremists" are a minority, that's why !
      The political correctness, ignorant mindset, and multiculturalist "everyone's equal" claptrap are just *annoying*. Religions are not "equal". This argument, this article, this discussion, are about Islam. Your loathing of Christianity is your right, but frankly it's beside the point.
      Sheesh, atheism is really turning into an intolerant religion.

  2. ANd? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what if it has that there?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:ANd? by DanTheManMS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So what if it has that there?

      Perhaps they merely do not wish to anger potential customers now that it's been discovered and publicized. This isn't the first time it's happened or anything. For example, look at Zelda Ocarina of Time: original versions of the cartridge contained Muslim chanting in the background of the fire temple music, which was taken out of later copies. Later re-releases of the game on the Gamecube also changed some symbols in-game that resembled the crescent moon. No real reason to remove these things other than to prevent conflicts among the audience.

    2. Re:ANd? by Somegeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sony is pulling it to avoid offending anyone who would not like phrases from the Qur'an used in association with such a game.

      In my mind Sony is actually going above and beyond to do the correct thing here. (Never thought that I would find myself typing those words.) I still believe they have a long way to go to make up for all of the DRM crap that they have pulled in the past though.

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    3. Re:ANd? by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cowering from bullies is not the right thing to do.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:ANd? by Golddess · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh? So are you saying that Sony pulling the God of War pre-order content (and indeed, any future God of War content) would be ok because I find God of War to be a blasphemous use of the term "God of War", insulting my own God of War, Ares Himself?

      Of course, I guess the major difference between me and the followers of the Qur'an, is that a small number of the Qur'an followers have shown themselves to be terrorists, and doing shit like this will appease them, because appeasement always works.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    5. Re:ANd? by Somegeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to see this as Sony paying respect, not as them knuckling under to threats. I would like to think that they would do the same thing if it was a passage from a Buddhist text which had offended Buddhists with its inclusion. (ashamed that I can't name a Buddhist text without looking it up)

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    6. Re:ANd? by alta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, use anything from the Qur'an in jest or light, and you can expect a bombing of your headquarters by muslims. Make fun of the Bible or Christians and expect to be prayed for, but never told you can't do it.

      Which is the religion of peace again?

      Doing this because you don't want offend all of your customers is probably the right thing. Bowing down to terrorists isn't. Which do you think they're doing? Personally, I sure wouldn't want to hear anything from the Qur'an in a game I'm playing.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    7. Re:ANd? by _bug_ · · Score: 1

      Cowering from bullies is not the right thing to do.

      And not taking the feelings of others into consideration is?

      So if the game had an audio track that included lines inspired by, say, the Westboro Baptist Church, you'd be okay with that? Maybe something that targets a specific ethic or racial group?

      It's not cowering. It's admitting a mistake was made (they didn't get the lyrics to the song, they just added it because they liked the sound) and correcting it (recall). What's the problem?

    8. Re:ANd? by alta · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Hmmm +3 Insightful, I can guarantee it won't stay that way.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    9. Re:ANd? by couchslug · · Score: 1, Troll

      "Cowering from bullies is not the right thing to do."

      It's not just a "bully" issue, it's a "bully" (toxic belief system) aided by cowering PC grovelling that teaches every culture other that those of the West is to be deferred to and may not be subject to criticism. Proof of their virtue is not required, because in a PC world cultural comparison is verboten.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    10. Re:ANd? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      And deliberately carrying out an act which is proven will enrage a fairly powerly group is the right thing to do just because you shouldn't give into bullies? Sometimes theres 'the right thing' and sometimes theres 'things you just don't do regardless because you know the reactions are going to be heightened'. In modern society, we also call it 'flamebait'.

    11. Re:ANd? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "And not taking the feelings of others into consideration is?"

      Irrelevant.

      "...you'd be okay with that?"
      If a game says something I don't like, I don't buy it. I do not apply pressure to force the artists to remove their content.

      "What's the problem?"

      Forcing an artist to change what they do becasue it offends someone is the antithesis of freedom.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:ANd? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      And not taking the feelings of others into consideration is?

      Correct, when that group (specifically the subset of Muslims who constantly get worked into a froth over stupid things like this) continually proves how thin-skinned it is.

      So if the game had an audio track that included lines inspired by, say, the Westboro Baptist Church, you'd be okay with that?

      The quotes in this story are not inherently offensive. They are morbid, perhaps, but factually true. They could as easily been written anywhere else.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    13. Re:ANd? by randyest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which would be odd, since there are no such passages. In fact, the only other religion I can think of that has a problem with their religious text being reproduced is Scientology.

      Neither deserves to get their way just because they want it, yet some followers of both use terrible means to try to enforce their way. Pretty sad, eh?

      --
      everything in moderation
    14. Re:ANd? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 0

      You just happen to live in a part of the world (and in a time) where making fun of the bible doesn't get you killed. If you're an American there are parts of your own country where that isn't true. The bible itself has this to recommend:

      "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him." Leviticus 24:16

    15. Re:ANd? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      And not taking the feelings of others into consideration is?

      The feelings of others are their own problem. I don't control your feelings. You do. If I take your feelings "into consideration", then I let you choose how I live my life and what decisions I make. So no. No one should let the feelings of someone else dictate their choices.

      Having good manners is a virtue. Anything beyond that is a capitulation to others' control.

    16. Re:ANd? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everything offends someone.
      freedom of speech means you can say what you want. Of course, nobody has to stay an listen.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just happen to live in a part of the world (and in a time) where making fun of the bible doesn't get you killed. If you're an American there are parts of your own country where that isn't true.

      Can you name one of those parts? Bet you can't.

    18. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you don't speak Arabic. So how would you know when to be offended and when not to be anyway?

      Or would you prefer not to hear any Arabic at all, since anyone speaking it must be a terrorist?

      And when did such casual racism become so cool?

    19. Re:ANd? by psychicninja · · Score: 1

      Yeah, use anything from the Qur'an in jest or light, and you can expect a bombing of your headquarters by muslims. Make fun of the Bible or Christians and expect to be prayed for, but never told you can't do it.

      Which is the religion of peace again?

      Umm... what? Yeah, maybe SOME Christians choose that option, just as some Muslims don't kill people over shit like that, but really... don't try to say all Christians are saints who wouldn't raise a hand against another soul. (btw IAAC)

      At any rate, no one was upset about this. Sony decided to do this proactively.

    20. Re:ANd? by grub · · Score: 2, Insightful


      freedom of speech means you can say what you want

      Sadly many people want "freedom from being offended"

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    21. Re:And? by alisson · · Score: 1

      I guess they've never read Revelations.

    22. Re:ANd? by thetagger · · Score: 1
      Which is the religion of peace again?

      How many countries of a different religion are currently under military occupation from your country? Just asking.

    23. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because of this?

      http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?p=r&user=patcondell&page=1

    24. Re:ANd? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can read all about it in The Protocols of the Elders of Christianity. The televangelists and the free masons are in it together. It's an American theocracy!

    25. Re:ANd? by nsayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're an American there are parts of your own country where that isn't true

      [Citation Needed]

    26. Re:ANd? by cl0s · · Score: 1

      Just because those that call themselves Christians or Jews don't actually follow the rules in the books which makes them Christians or Jews doesn't make the religion anymore peaceful. Tell that to half the soldiers oversees who think they are fighting a war for God, like Palins son lol. We're on a mission from God!! If you don't believe in God, its because they bombed our towers ;-)

    27. Re:ANd? by Otto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not paying respect, it's being a coward and knuckling under to idiotic demands. I don't care whether somebody believes in something or not, to demand something like this is completely out of line and should be ignored by all right-thinking people.

      Just because it's "religious" does not make it also not stupid.

      I will absolutely not be purchasing this game because of Sony's actions on this matter.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    28. Re:ANd? by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know of an easier, cheaper solution that nobody seems to want for some reason. Shame.

      These people really need to lighten up and learn to deal with it.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    29. Re:ANd? by Talderas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sony could have had a patch released for the game, which is what the Muslim group that complained suggested.

      You know, save the ton of money wasted recalling, reprinting and reshipping the product and not piss off the fans that weren't offended.

      I'm sorry, but recalling was not the smartest or best choice. Instead of offending a religion, they've pissed off those that wouldn't have been offended. They would have ended up with fewer people with negative opinions on the game with a patch.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    30. Re:ANd? by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 4, Informative
      I wondered the same thing, too. From the article:

      The post, by user 'Solid08', indicates of the specific references in the composition: "In the 18th second: "ÙfÙ ÙÙØ ØØØ¦ÙØ© ØÙÙ...ÙØ" ("kollo nafsin tha'iqatol mawt", literally: 'Every soul shall have the taste of death')... almost immediately after, in the 27th second: "ÙfÙ Ù...Ù ØÙÙSÙØ ÙØÙ" ("kollo man alaiha fan", literally: 'All that is on earth will perish')." It also comments: "I asked many of my friends online and offline and they heard the exact same thing that I heard easily when I played that part of the track. Certain Arabic hardcore gaming forums are already discussing this, so we decided to take action by emailing you before this spreads to mainstream attention. We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending. We hope you would remove that track from the game immediately via an online patch, and make sure that all future shipments of the game disk do not contain it."

    31. Re:ANd? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Why is that a 'correct thing'? Because Muslims right now are the greatest thugs?

      I'm sorry, but that just makes Sony a coward.

    32. Re:ANd? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, nobody has to stay an listen.

      And that's the thing. Assume Squaresoft released a game that happens to offend many christians, for example by having the bad guy have an uncanny similarity to popular depictions of Jesus. Do you think that game or subsequent Squaresoft games would still sell well in countries like the USA? At the very least they'd get lots of negative PR in mainstream media. Lots of negative PR means lots of lost sales. Lots of lost sales means lots of lost money. Lots of lost money means the shareholders want to have a word with whoever's responsible for making the bad guy look like Jesus (and not catching that before release).

      Free speech is nice and dandy - if you're a real person. If you're a corporation you can speak freely all you want as long as it doesn't negatively affect sales. If removing Qur'an chants from the game makes it more likely that the game will sell better in muslimic regions then removing Qur'an chants is most probably a good idea.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    33. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is the religion of peace again?

      Trick question, its neither.

      It's kind of surprising to see a comment like this modded Insightful. Don't be so self-righteous about your own religion (or lack thereof). Extremism is a force unto itself and it will find a home anywhere that it can justify itself. Its presence in religion (or anywhere else) says nothing about anyone other than the extremists themselves. If it did, then you should label yourself a terrorist along with all the Muslims you are so willing to generalize about.

      Signed,
      The people killed in the Inquisition, the Crusades, French Wars of Religion, European Wars of Religion, abortion clinic bombings, Israeli/Palestinian conflict........

      (and apologies for the ethnocentrism of the list)

    34. Re:ANd? by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Which is the religion of peace again?

      Which one bombs abortion clinics? Which one fathered the crusades? Which one preaches a violent and painful torture in the afterlife for non-believers?

      I am appalled this flamebait is currently at +4 insightful, absolutely appalled.

      That being said I don't want to hear anything from the Qu'Ran anymore than I want to hear passages from the Bible when I am playing videogames but I'll put up with it to avoid yet another advance for on the censorship front.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    35. Re:ANd? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      No ethic or racial group has a right NOT to be offended.

      For example, I'm offended by any religious symbolic. Does it give me right to firebomb all churches?

      Nope. Because that's my personal feeling and I understand that some morons think that crosses and crescents are somehow sacred.

    36. Re:ANd? by Neoprofin · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean like Xenogears, where you KILL GOD?

      It has lesbians too, and it's still incredibly popular, the only thing that held it back was that part of it's budget was redirected towards FF7.

    37. Re:ANd? by Sciros · · Score: 1

      And why exactly should religion get this respect? What is it about religion that makes people give it a free ride no matter what? The free world has acquired a dirty habit of bending over backwards for every demand Muslims make, and this is just another example of that. Buddhist texts shouldn't be given *undue* respect, either (note that they probably deserve more than most of the Qur'An), but that's a non-issue since Buddhists aren't the ones censoring material on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    38. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lrn2tab. You probably could have looked it up in wikipedia in shorter time than it took to make us aware of your ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#Buddhist_texts

    39. Re:ANd? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You just happen to live in a part of the world (and in a time) where making fun of the bible doesn't get you killed. If you're an American there are parts of your own country where that isn't true.

      Which parts of the USA are those? I've lived all over the USA at one time or another, excluding Alaska, and have never even heard of anyone doing that sort of thing, much less met anyone advocating it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    40. Re:ANd? by JPLemme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lots of negative PR means lots of lost sales? It depends on the source of the negative PR and on the target audience.

      The mainstream media rarely mentions GTA in a positive way, but it hasn't hurt the series' sales any because your average GTA player takes Fox News' approbation as a Good Thing.

    41. Re:ANd? by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Small number of Catholics have shown themselves to be terrorists. (See: northern ireland)

    42. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Muslims who might bomb your headquarters are radical extremists. The vast majority of Muslims are decent, peaceful people.

      Christianity isn't free of radical extremists who might bomb your headquarters, either.

    43. Re:ANd? by philspear · · Score: 1

      Cowering from bullies is not the right thing to do.

      Poking terrorists with a stick while knowing they'll probably seek revenge with a bomb on people who had nothing to do with you is also not the right thing to do. Look at the response to those danish cartoons: the paper got death threats, but the terrorist response was against anything Danish. The danish embassy in pakistan was bombed, with those cartoons being the reason. The people who died did not make the cartoon.

      There are no good easy bumper-sticker sized answers when it comes to what to do about extremist fundamentalism.

    44. Re:ANd? by Mitchell+Mebane · · Score: 1

      Sure, they probably would do that. But what if it was a passage from the Bible which offended Christians? Do you think they would've recalled the game then?

      --

      The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
      --Aristotle
    45. Re:ANd? by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean there. Who cares if it has a couple of passages from the Qur'an? It's art, right? I play Castlevania and that is positively steeped in Biblical overtones and in the original Symphony of the Night Dracula quotes Jesus as he dies. I have no beef with that (yes I'm a Christian). I'm sure there are those that do, but I don't. If it offended me I would just not play it. Similarly, I don't watch South Park, not necessarily offensive but I find it distasteful. No big deal. God can defend Himself. And if he wants me to go out and slaughter a few wrongdoers... I'm very certain that I'm listening to the wrong voice in my head.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    46. Re:ANd? by 2short · · Score: 1


      Do you have the right to not buy housewares with crosses on them?

      Do makers of housewares, aware of your preferences, have the right to make stuff without crosses on it?

      Nobody is firebombing anything. They're pointing out they won't buy the product if it includes this audio track.

    47. Re:ANd? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm not trying to say that the only terrorists that exist are Muslim, I'm just saying that, with the current state of the world, terrorists who are also Muslim seems to be what everyone wants to avoid, for lack of a better way of saying this.

      And flamebait? I apologize if I came off the wrong way, but in all seriousness, I would like to know what, aside from the fact that a select few (just so you know I'm not generalizing to all Muslims, I am above such racial profiling, but am trying to speak from the PoV of those who would made such a decision to pull content like this) Muslims have shown that they are unafraid to use fear to get what they want, makes Muslim claims to "please don't do this" any more valid to obey than my own.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    48. Re:ANd? by I'm+just+joshin · · Score: 1

      Sigh... The Crusades was basically a DEFENSIVE action. The Muslims were sweeping across Christendom. The history of the period is fascinating and sadly very misunderstood. -J

    49. Re:ANd? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      1) Sure.
      2) Sure.

      Sony has a history of "religiously incorrect" games. See here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19202841/

      However, this time they do not even dare to talk with Muslims. Because it's useless - Muslims are like big babies and are offended by EVERYTHING. Like giving name 'Mohammed' to a stuffed animal.

    50. Re:ANd? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Crap, lol, I just realized that my sarcasm tag got removed.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    51. Re:ANd? by windex82 · · Score: 1

      Religion shouldn't exist to begin with. We'd all be better off for it.

      It's just a long winded way of saying, "I'm afraid of death"

    52. Re:ANd? by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      How about these?

      Pro 25:21-22 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

      Feel free to take that out of context, but it basically says to be kind to your enemy. It'll probably make them even more mad at you, but it's still the right thing to do, and God will reward you in some way. Cool

      Matt 5:43-44 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

      I don't know where you think people will stone you you for not reading a Bible, or for offending them. (I'm not naive enough to believe that more than 10% of Christians do what they really should, but most of them genuinely try)

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    53. Re:ANd? by JPLemme · · Score: 1

      You're "absolutely appalled" by something you read on the Internet? By a cliche, even? You must need a sedative drip just to get sleep at night.

      But I'll bite anyway.

      1. Christians. At least 2 people have died in the last 20 years due to these bombings. Just the Madrid bombing alone killed over a hundred people. And let's not ignore the fact that your "Christian terrorists" are targeting the people who are performing the abortions, wheras Islamic terrorists will target anyone who's easy to kill. They usually don't even try to avoid killing other Muslims.

      2. It was almost a thousand years ago. The next time the pope raises an army and marches on Jerusalem I'll admit you have a point.

      3. Christianity. And Islam.

      It's not really about religion, though, is it? You could justify terrorism with quotes from the Kama Sutra if you had to. It just so happens that today's terrorist-on-the-go is using Islam as an excuse for trying to destroy civilization. Forty years ago they used Marx and Mao. You can't blame Islam for September 11th any more than you can blame Karl Marx for Stalin's purges.

    54. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're an American there are parts of your own country where that isn't true

      [Citation Needed]

      Top Gear's American Special
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq-kK7GEb7M

    55. Re:ANd? by westlake · · Score: 1
      So what if it has that there?
      .

      You enter a minefield when you quote from sacred texts out of context.

      If you are doing so simply for the dramatic effect - it is a pretty good bet that you will find yourself on the defensive - if only because of your adolescent arrogance and stupidity.

      If you intended to pour gasoline on the fire, there is really no more to be said.

    56. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddhists? Offended? Are you sure?

    57. Re:ANd? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      In fact, the only other religion I can think of that has a problem with their religious text being reproduced is Scientology.

      In general it depends on how the text is being reproduced. Try recording a song that includes you chanting the Lord's Prayer backwards, and see how long it takes before fundamentalist Christians start complaining. And given the long history of Hindu mob violence in India, it would very much surprise me if it was safe to use Hindu texts in profane Western contexts.

      How confident are you that no Buddhists anywhere would be at all offended by any use of Buddhist texts? They might be less sensitive than Muslims, but even the most enlightened Buddhist is still only human.

    58. Re: ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like a good way to get free publicity

    59. Re:ANd? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Or like Lunar Silver Star Story Complete, where God is a hot chick with blue hair and a dominatrix outfit?

    60. Re:ANd? by moogied · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually the most enlightened Buddhist is in Nirvana, and is free from being human...

      --
      So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    61. Re:ANd? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. Tales of Symphonia was pretty much based around Angels and the god(ess) they were associated with actually being an evil organization trying to commit genocide.

    62. Re:ANd? by mike_sucks · · Score: 1

      Yeah, religions just can't take a joke. Imagine the outrage from fundie christians if there was a burning cross or something in it. It'd get banned in the US.

      Once again, atheism is the only sane choice.

      /Mike

      --
      -- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
    63. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably couldn't find a buddhist that feels offended by anything.

    64. Re:ANd? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know I'm invoking Godwin's Law here, but I should point out that Denmark had the guts to stand up to the Nazi's back when everyone was too scared to poke them too.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    65. Re:ANd? by rowanparker · · Score: 1

      More importantly - what true buddhist is going to be offended by some words said in a video game?

    66. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We see you as punished enough by being the kind of person who plays 'Lunar Silver Star Story Complete'.

        - The Christians

    67. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many Dhammapada stories there seem to be a consistent theme of instant benefit out of reading/hearing the Dhamma. Therefore, one could infer that a Buddhist should not be insulted by any association (even "evil") of the Dhamma since someone could have benefit simply by reading the text or hearing the thought.
      Same could be said about Christian teachings since Jesus himself set the example by visiting the "outcast" of the society.
      I have not enough information on Muslim heritage to be able to say whether the decision of Sony was a correct one.

    68. Re:ANd? by pyrbrand · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and offer medical treatment to women whose health is at risk because of pregnancy and expect Christians to blow up doctors. (and that's limiting myself to modern atrocities - include historical ones and you have a lot worse stuff to bring up from inquisitions, crusades, witchcraft trials etc) Come on, quit associating an entire religion (including Atheism - the worlds worst mass murderers were communists like Stalin and Mao) with some wacko subset of it is bullshit. Agnostics are pretty much the only people who cannot blame their actions on faith (since you have to have faith that there is no god of which you are unaware to be an atheist).

    69. Re:ANd? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, religions just can't take a joke. Imagine the outrage from fundie christians if there was a burning cross or something in it. It'd get banned in the US.

      It wouldn't be the fundies complaining about the burning cross, it'd be the NAACP. And there already has been an album cover with a burning cross on it published in the US, Marilyn Manson's "Last Tour on Earth". It's likely not the only one, either.

    70. Re:ANd? by LionMage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending.

      Ah, so this explains some of the enmity directed toward Sufis, then. FWIW, I don't think this view that mixing sacred scripture and music is a bad thing is entirely universal, merely a view held by the conservative elements within Islam. Which seem to be the most vocal. (That said, I am also aware that many Wahabbists view music in general as un-islamic or anti-islamic, so Sufis get a lot of hate just for that...)

    71. Re:ANd? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Isn't "being offended" contradictory to the tenets of Buddhism? ... I know, I know, all religions are hypocritical, but still.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    72. Re:ANd? by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      No one died over "piss christ". There were no bombings when "The Last Temptation of Christ" was shown.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    73. Re:ANd? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Everything offends someone.

      I'm offended by that.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    74. Re:ANd? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Why would someone quoting the words that you ostensibly live your life by be offensive to you? I'm not just talking about muslims here. A person decides that some holy scripture is worth changing their life over (little things, like going to church or not drinking, or big things...) and furthermore almost every religion includes some element of proselytizing in its dogma.

      So why would it bug you to have other people hear the words you live your life by?

      Ok, maybe you think it's blasphemous. Muslims think eating pork is blasphemous- should everyone stop eating pork? Should everyone stop eating beef? Should we begin stoning our daughters to death for being impertinent?

      I don't know...
      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    75. Re:ANd? by dangitman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is the religion of peace again?

      None of them?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    76. Re:ANd? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Crap, I forgot one of my other points in the last comment.

      Anyone remember Pulp Fiction? Remember Sam Jackson quoting the bible before he killed someone? We should pull that movie because it offends me and if you don't I'll go find a danish embassy and burn it down.

      I'll bet if you looked in Sony Pictures' repertoire, you'd find all sorts of things that would have gotten the actors, the producers, the directors, and the viewers all burned at the stake 400 years ago.

      Just saying.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    77. Re:ANd? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it depends. But when Fox News cries about GTA is so bad Fox News doesn't represent the intended audience. When [insert appropriste news source here] complains about how LittleBigPlanet fails to pay the Qur'an proper respect there might be potential customers affected.

      To paraphrase a post I made elsewhere: Being controversial because you want to is good. Being controversial without wanting is might end up bad.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    78. Re:ANd? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Sony is pulling it to avoid offending anyone who would not like phrases from the Qur'an used in association with such a game.

      The Qur'an is a written work. In arabic. There are no authorized translations into any other language. If it's english, it isn't the Qur'an. If it is an audio sample, it cannot be the Qur'an.

      Sony isn't pulling it to avoid offending anyone, they are pulling it to avoid offending radical muslims, specifically. If Sony pulled things to avoid offending anyone, they'd be pulling a lot of the crap music they produce with anti-woman, anti-Christian, or any other violent offensive language. No, those works sell well and it is unlikely that anyone will riot or put a Sony executive under a sentence of death for producing them.

      In my mind Sony is actually going above and beyond to do the correct thing here.

      This is hardly the "correct thing". It's offensive and insulting to people who think the free exchange of ideas is worth something -- all ideas, not just the politically correct ones dealing with one specific religion.

    79. Re:ANd? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "The world needs a scapegoat, so here I am." - Marilyn Manson, about 2yrs prior to people pointing fingers at him after Colombine.

      Disclaimer: I'm old fart who could not name a single Manson track, just looking at him on stage offends my sensibilities. OTOH I'm also old enough to realise there is an insightfull and intelligent person behind the stage persona.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    80. Re:ANd? by orzetto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Er, what? Denmark was the quietest piece of Axis-occupied territory in Europe. I cannot recall a country occupied by Nazi Germany that offered so little resistance. I wonder where you got that factoid.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    81. Re:ANd? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Try recording a song that includes you chanting the Lord's Prayer backwards, and see how long it takes before fundamentalist Christians start complaining.

      And Sony execs will be slapping each other on the back congratulating themselves on all the free publicity as the dollars roll in.

      Anti-christian lyrics are nothing new.

      How confident are you that no Buddhists anywhere would be at all offended by any use of Buddhist texts?

      Considering the number of them I've come across in airports trying to sell me copies of their holy writings translated into english, I'd say very. The important question is not how offended they'd be, but when was the last death sentence in absentia issued by a Buddhist monk, and how many buddhists would try to carry it out? Salmon Rushdie isn't an item on the seafood side of the menu.

    82. Re:ANd? by JPLemme · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with that sentiment. And to be frank, there are a billion Muslims in the world and a lot of them play videogames. If you created a game that was somehow anti-Christian you won't get bombs thrown in your headquarters but you will certainly reduce your sales to a certain subset of Christianity.

      (I have a friend who refused to buy Van Halen's F.U.C.K. album because he felt it was offensive. And NOT (like a normal person) because Sammy Hagar was the lead singer.)

    83. Re:ANd? by philspear · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I've heard that the Danish resistance generally consisted of being rude to the occupying soldiers.

      Besides that, if elrous thought I was accusing the danes of being cowardly, he seriously misread my post.

    84. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony removing this to appease Muslims offends me.

      Can it be put back in so now I won't be offended?

      I have an interest group, too, yanno.

    85. Re:ANd? by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I gotcher cite right here.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    86. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm having trouble imagining Buddhists being particularly offended by such an inclusion... I have even more trouble imagining Sony doing anything about it. Let's face it--Muslims are a special case, in that they might well kill you (or some hapless bystander in a riot) for making fun of their precious superstitions. (I'm sure there are peaceful Muslims, but I've been listening to The End Of Faith by Sam Harris and I'm pretty well convinced that anyone who claims that Islam is a 'religion of peace' is either lying or has no idea what they're talking about.)

      The only other religion that I can think of that might provoke a similar response would be Scientology--and that's only because they're so damn lawsuit happy (and they'd have a pretty good case, since their crap is under copyright.)

    87. Re:ANd? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Yes. I think what he meant was that Denmark offered peaceful cooperation as long as Nazi-germany treated danish citizens including the danish jews fairly. For this reason Denmark was the only occupied country that wasn't purged, and were the only place Jews didn't even have the wear the David star. Germany later changed the stance on Denmark, and this ended the peaceful cooperation.

      So no, Denmark didn't really stand-up to Germany on a global scale, not even for their own sovereignty, but they did stand up to an occupying force on behalf of the citizens.

    88. Re:ANd? by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Yet video game manufacturers still strive to be the most offensive in every other category, including other religions.

      I'm no Catholic, but those guys seem to ALWAYS be portrayed as evil in video games (and most movies).

    89. Re:ANd? by Builder · · Score: 1

      Do try to keep up! Dave Grohl has moved on and is now in the Foo Fighters.

      Sheesh... kids today!

    90. Re:ANd? by Langfat · · Score: 1

      "Denmark offered peaceful cooperation as long as Nazi-germany treated danish citizens including the danish jews fairly. For this reason Denmark was the only occupied country that wasn't purged..."

      I'm no student of history, but I'm willing to bet on the fact that most of the populous having blond hair/blue eyes went a significant distance to helping them win favour with the Nazis...

    91. Re:ANd? by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Sometimes theres 'the right thing' and sometimes theres 'things you just don't do regardless because you know the reactions are going to be heightened'. In modern society, we also call it 'flamebait'.

      It's actually called blaming the victim. I doubt, for example, if Muslim woman in Pakistan Flamebait religious fanatics by not wearing a veil just because they want to get acid thrown in their faces.

      Yes I know many people believe that because it is their culture it must be condoned. Unfortunately very few people respect my culture of freedom and hedonism because most people are hypocrites. Taking a appeasement approach towards censorship never helps, and trivializing the opposition is just condescending.

      I will emphasize this point (you said):
      "And deliberately carrying out an act which is proven will enrage a fairly powerly group".
      I didn't see any evidence to malicious motivations from either Sony, the musician, nor the parent post which you are replying to.

    92. Re:ANd? by john83 · · Score: 1

      A bit. I'd suggest picking up a copy of Simon Kuper's "Ajax, the Dutch, the War". He has a few pages on the Danish occupation. The Danes refused many times to bring in restrictions on Jews - if the star of David was made compulsory for Jews, their King would be the first to wear one, they said. They treated the Jews with respect. At one point, a synegogue was vandalised. The Danes apologised to the Jews, found the culprit and punished him. Finally, the Germans declared that they'd deport the Jews. The Danes kicked up a fuss, and insisted that deportations only be to the more civilised camps (I forget the name - but they made sure no one went to the death camps). The locally stations Germans refused to co operate, so new people were brought in. The Danes refused to let them search homes. Only Jews who answered their doors to the Germans could be deported. About 400 did. One of them was an elderly woman. A letter writing campaign resulted in her release. The remainder were treated well at the insistence of the Danes, who sent food parcels and letters of support. The remaining 7000 or so Jews were promptly smuggled to Sweden in fishing boats, with the locals and the locally stationed Germans turning a blind eye to everything. There's one story of a German soldier stopping a garbage truck at a checkpoint, opening the back, counting the Jews hiding inside and waving the truck on. Yes, the Danes had it easier than most, but they did more than they had to - more than many others - and deserve to be lauded for their actions.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    93. Re:ANd? by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is like a Christian fundie complaining about the amount of violence and blood in a Quentin Tarantino movie. Why the hell are you even watching it in the first place? Hardcore Islamics shouldn't be playing video games, I'm absolutely certain their interpretation of Islam bans anything that's fun, same as with the Baptists. Put down that controller before you go to hell, Yousef!

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    94. Re:ANd? by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      And given the long history of Hindu mob violence in India, it would very much surprise me if it was safe to use Hindu texts in profane Western contexts.

      No, that's fine; I've seen Hindu imagery mocked on the Simpsons, on Womens shoes and in various other places. The only time I've seen a protest is when it was used on a ,stamp which was a bizarre protest by a previously unknown group who've never been heard from again. The stamp didn't bother me (I actually liked the picture,) my friends or relatives anywhere near as much as some of the other stuff I've seen. Actually none of the stuff I've seen winds me up, except knowing that fashion designers seem to think "oh, they won't protest, so let's use imagery from that culture". Try putting a picture of Allah or Yahweh on women's underwear (yes, I've seen this done with a picture of Lakshmi) and see the reaction from those fundies. I just thought the thing was tasteless and moved on.

      However, I believe that you are correct, if any of these things were shown in many parts of India, there would be full scale riots. In the west (at least here in the UK), Hindu Indians tend to be reasonably educated, middle class high achievers so are "enlightened" (i.e. they've taken on the benefits of the enlightenment not anything spiritual). Back in India they are mostly still poor and uneducated, religion is just the spark for the mob violence; not the cause.

      Full disclosure: as you probably guessed, I'm Hindu; I actually lean towards atheism within hinduism

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    95. Re:ANd? by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      That was exactly my point, it isn't about religon which is why such comparisons are flamebait (maybe the mods meant +1 incitefull?). Posting via palm, so forgive the brevity.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    96. Re:ANd? by nsayer · · Score: 1

      So where does it say that he was actually killed for making fun of the bible?

    97. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol? Sony believed a post by some guy on an internet forum?

      IMO they got trolled. Might as well replace the track with Never Gonna Give You Up.

    98. Re:ANd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And would you like to think that the same would happen with passages of the Bible?

      I find this whole religion thing absurd, on any of them. Specially when triggered by the fear to a minority of religious zealots, because they are a minority (the zealots, not the religion believers).

      The mental crime inspection is all over...

    99. Re:ANd? by Qliphah · · Score: 1

      And yet everybody just laughed about the church in England that had an entire level modeled after it in Resistance. Funny how that works.

    100. Re:ANd? by randyest · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a load of shit! When's the last time you heard fundamentalist christians complaining about the 100,000+ cases of sites, books, and music "reciting the lord's prayer backwards?" Much less complaining loud enough to get it censored? I'll tell you when: never.

      Hindu mob violence in India has nothing to do with "sacred texts" being reproduced. You have no ide what you're talking about. Same with Buddhism -- I am 100% certain that none anywhere would be offended by any use of their "sacred texts", since they really don't have any sacred texts, as they tend to not confuse the symbol for the reality as Islam does so often.

      If you have some actual evidence, put it out. The speculative "it would very much surprise me if" and "how confident are you that" weasel phrases are weaksauce.

      --
      everything in moderation
    101. Re:ANd? by paazin · · Score: 1

      Uh... what? You realize that by giving approbation they're lauding it, right?

      I don't quite understand your point unless you're implying Fox News isn't part of the Mainstream media.

    102. Re:ANd? by Doggabone · · Score: 1

      Sony is pulling it to avoid offending anyone who would not like phrases from the Qur'an used in association with such a game.

      Certainly true, but I believe it is to prevent lost sales and not that it's the "right thing to do and that they're just as nervous of offending non-Muslims. ("Sony supports religous terrorists!") I'm certain that there would be an outcry (and most importantly to Sony - lost sales) from misguided non-Muslims as well as misguided Muslims if the song had been left in the game. They've noticed that someone's thumb is resting on the "Hot hot hot button" - any controversy that invokes mention of Islam is certain to blow farther out of proportion than something like the blind protesting "Blindness" - http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=8a0cd1fb-bc44-45a4-bc86-6a116a90f4e8. It's difficult to sell to an angry, incoherent audience but in this case it's easy to avoid the risk.

      The executives at Sony are probably trying to avoid the same kind of flack that they got over the use of Manchester Cathedral in last year's "Resistance" game - which also was much furor over nothing (and in the end, un-noticed) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/6739575.stm. Getting uppity about religious symbols isn't exclusive to anybody.

  3. So what? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Qur'an is out of copyright by now, so what's the problem?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is less copyright lawyers than suicide bombers in this case. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it managed to generate more than some angry speeches from the small group of guys who were already going "death to the infidels!", but like the Danish cartoons people have to pay attention because occasionally they'll send someone over with a pound of dynamite on his chest and blow up your front office (or more often, just some random cafe somewhere).

    2. Re:So what? by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Religion of Peace" indeed.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:So what? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem seems to be worry that you'll get the same sort of reaction from a group of people whose religion tells them to burn effigies over cartoons, or stick knives in people's chests, for "offending" them.

      Just look at what happened to Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushdie, to name just two.

      Now ask yourself whether that's really a "religion of peace" or something else. I can understand why the Little Big Planet studios were afraid of this.

    4. Re:So what? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but the West left most of their worst religious-nutball-inspired-violence behind hundreds of years ago. Muslims are still doing it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:So what? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, but the West left most of their worst religious-nutball-inspired-violence behind hundreds of years ago. Muslims are still doing it.

      Most but not all. I wouldn't want my religion being judged based on abortion clinic bombers.

      It is fair to say that the Islamic world has a serious problem with violent extremists, a problem that must be addressed.

      To mockingly say "Religion of Peace indeed", and imply that Muslims in general are engaging in violence, is not only unfair it's bigotry.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:So what? by Fex303 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, but the West left most of their worst religious-nutball-inspired-violence behind hundreds of years ago.

      Oh really?

    7. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time a so-called "christian" got off his lazy, bible-thumping ass and went and blew up a building without applying for the proper permits first?

      It's just not as much of an issue.

    8. Re:So what? by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings. Then your silly "everybody does it" argument might at least be factual. (It's still a ridiculous argument, even if everybody did do it -- but everybody doesn't.)

    9. Re:So what? by Kagura · · Score: 1

      There are some (weasel words: see Talk Page) who call themselves "christians" by some twist of their mind, and bomb abortion clinics and doctors who perform them. But this argument is pointless, because everybody will keep thinking whatever their opinion was before, whether enlightened or not.

    10. Re:So what? by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it's not a suicide bombing... but it's a bombing:
      http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/37363/

    11. Re:So what? by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The scale is nowhere near the same, and you know it. When millions of Muslims protest (violently), but only dozens of Christians are involved in clinic bombings (and those haven't happened in many years), it's disingenuous to compare one with the other.

      Besides which, the real difference between the two aren't the modern followers, it's the founders. Jesus was a pretty nice guy who could be counted on to provide extra booze at a party (even if he was a mite touchy about conducting business in a temple). Mohammed raped and slaughtered thousands of people, kept slaves, and taught his followers to kill anyone who disagreed with them (and not in parables that people can take out of context, but in direct orders). Not even remotely similar.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    12. Re:So what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The difference is very simple.

      Pretty much all violent religious extremists and their supporters (both open and tacit) are fundamentalists in their particular religion. In the Christian world, fundamentalists constitute a tiny minority. In the Islamic world, fundamentalism is the mainstream, and liberal Muslims are shunned and persecuted.

      So, yes, I will stand by the implication that "Muslims in general" - by which I mean the majority of those considering themselves Muslims worldwide - are either directly engaging in violence on religious grounds, or encouraging others to do so (you've seen the results of all those "let's introduce Shari'a Law here" polls, right?), or at least not outright condemning those who do so.

      400 years ago, the Christian Western world had the same problem. But not anymore. We got over it, and that means that so can they, and pointing out that the Islamic world is not there yet is not bigotry - it's a plain assertion of fact.

    13. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qur'an was never been in Copyright!

    14. Re:So what? by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Muslims just majorly belong to countries in a rather more, er, delicate state. You could use your head for a second and think about the different elements involved in the generation of certain radical corps of armed revolutionaries/fighters.

      Oh, wait, you're just a typical American bigot. Nothing to see here, move along.

    15. Re:So what? by geekoid · · Score: 0

      If you are Muslim and not don't what you text tells you, you are a poor Muslim.

      Goes with any religion, really.

      Muslims are tasked with engaging in violence. It is very clearly laid out.

      The fact is, you aren't really Muslim and will not see heaven, and you should be killed. At least according to the very text you pretend to follow.

      If your religion tells you to wear the funny hat, you can't claim to be that Religion and not wear the funny hat.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:So what? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      The scale is nowhere near the same

      Ahhh, equivalence. So, pray tell, where's the cutoff point? How many more abortion clinics do I need to bomb in order to qualify Christianity for "Religion of Peace" snide remarks?

      Seriously. Blow up a building, you're a fucking 'tard. Protest ignorantly in the street, you could anyone from a bloodthirsty Saudi to a Phelps clan member, and quite frankly, neither of us should really give a shit until they've broken the law.

      Move along, nothing to see here.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    17. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Qur'an is out of copyright by now, so what's the problem?

      No you can't! You just can't!
      Because... uhm... because it ain't out of copyright! Yeah, that's it! The author needs to die first, and Allah can be seen as writer... in a way. So it's not out of copyright! You're not saying Allah is dead, now are you? Huh? Or are you disrespecting islam??

      (Religious logic is so convenient...)

    18. Re:So what? by Trojan35 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or burn people at the stake.
      Or lynch people for the color of their skin.
      Or torture people to "confess" their sins.

      All carried out by church-loving citizens. Oh wait, we were bashing Islam here. My bad.

    19. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Qur'an is out of copyright by now, so what's the problem?

      Copyright lasts 50 years after the author's death. God's not dead, so copyright is still in force, isn't it?

      Then again, if you're Christian, God WAS dead, but now he's back, so what do we do? Michael Jordan got his number back, could we give God his copyright back?

      But I think he wanted people to copy it, but was it ever put into the public domain? Man, I knew I forgot to do something...

    20. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just a typical American hating douche.

    21. Re:So what? by g8oz · · Score: 1

      Religious extremism in Islamic societies exists because of the state of those societies not because of the religion itself. That is the key point you are missing. A few centuries ago Christian societies were in a similar state.

      They changed, the religion didn't. The same thing will happen in the Islamic world, hopefully sooner than later.

    22. Re:So what? by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      Haha, no, I'm not. I've got lots of American friends. I'm just not friendly towards the typical American bigots, that's all :)

    23. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you obviously have not spent much time in the middle east/asia... it's a religous war zone and muslims are fighting on every front against multiple religions.

      Call me a bigot if you must, but you'll only look more foolish.

    24. Re:So what? by DevVar8++ · · Score: 1

      Yay! Religion pissing contest. Maybe you should all learn some effing history and show me a single religion worth having around. "Tell me about a recent clinic bombing... wah wah wah..." Give it a rest. I HATE apologists and hypocrites. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Hindus, Buddhists and everything in-between need to grow the hell up, because collectively you are a plague on humanity.

    25. Re:So what? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings.

      1) Christians have one-upped suicide bombings. We have the "proxy bomb" which are even worse.

      That's where Christians(*) kidnapped an innocent family and then coerced the father to drive a car bomb into a target to save his hostage family.

      Not only does it have all the terror of being bombed, but now you have the added terror of having your family kidnapped and being coerced into doing the bombing yourself.

      2) Christian tenets, even extreme fundamentalist ones, don't put suicide on a pedestal as a path to glory in heaven, so there aren't many Christian suicide bombers. But there are LOTs of regular bombers who place the bomb and then leave... I fail to see how that is morally or ethically any better? In some respects its actually worse... a Christian bomber lives to bomb again, and again, and again.

      (*) Proxy bombs were used by the IRA in the 90's for a short time. The IRA was predominantly Catholic, but also had many Protestant members -- either of course qualify as Christians.

    26. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw your bigotry comment. This is a religion whose basis of normal is to strap bomb laden vests to children and to use a school as a shield.

      There are lots of moderate muslims? Oh? really? Where are they? I have only seen one stand up (Wafa Sultan) and call the cowards as such.

      I agree with one part of your comment though; it is not right to mockingly refer to it as a religion of peace. It is more like a religion of pieces.

    27. Re:So what? by camcorder · · Score: 1

      How can behaviour of people can be associated with their religion? Saying Islam has nothing to do with peace for cultural misbehaving of some people, has same non-sense as saying being into Christianity teachings lead people to child molestation and homosexualism.

      Given enough bad intent you can find people sin in behalf of their religion for any religion at all.

    28. Re:So what? by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't see suicide bombings coming from oppressors, suicide bombings are carried out by the oppressed (or those who see themselves as). You see laws and the twisting of science and culture coming from oppressors.

    29. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently someone has forgotten the airplanes the Irish Republican Army (predominantly Irish Catholics) blew up... (See Pan Am Flight 103 as an example. There are others).

    30. Re:So what? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The line can be drawn quite simply.

      Practice highly visible public heresy, for example by quoting particularly unflattering passages of a particular religion's holy book.

      Now: how many death threats do you receive?

      If the answer is not "zero", then you can start with the snide remarks.

      I can't recall ever hearing about someone who declined to publish something naughty about Christianity because they feared for their lives. But the same thing happens routinely with Islam.

      There is a qualitative difference between having a small group of nutballs angry at you and having the government of a major middle-eastern power decide that you should die because you insulted their religion.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    31. Re:So what? by Maudib · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "religious-nutball-inspired-violence behind hundreds of years ago"
      Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

      -Europe had a nice bout of Christians on Muslim Genocide in the 90s. 250,000 murdered in the name of Christ.
      -Then there was that Holocaust thing. Lets not forget how many "Christians" in France and Italy were gleeful participants.
      -Wiping out Native Americans throughout the 1800s most certainly had a religious component. Civilizing the saveges, etc.
      -A MAJOR component of American fear and hatred for Communism stemmed from a Christian hatred for aethiesm.
      -The Iraq war. How many Americans justified this or were motivated by Christianity? GWB certainly did to an extent. As did Pat Robertson and his moronic followers.

      And in the U.S. how often are Christians beating and murdering gays, doctors at abortion clinics, etc?

      Sorry religious violence is rampant in the West to this day. That is because religion is by necessity, violent.

    32. Re:So what? by couchslug · · Score: 3, Funny

      "The Qur'an is out of copyright by now, so what's the problem?"

      Fanbois, with big knives.

      Just be happy the RIAA hasn't discovered their methods.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    33. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mohammed raped and slaughtered thousands of people, kept slaves, and taught his followers to kill anyone who disagreed with them (and not in parables that people can take out of context, but in direct orders). Not even remotely similar.

      [Citation Needed]

    34. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but someone has to be held responsible. You can't disregard the actions of a plurality of a group because those actions do not represent the whole group. This is an utterly ridiculous situation caused by uncivilized and barbaric radicals, to accede to the wishes of a few is tyranny. To preemptively accede to the possibility of threat by a group who in no way should logically be insulted by this is borderline insanity. The type of people who burned and threatened over a political cartoon are nothing short of violent criminals and should be treated as such. Hiding behind religion should be no excuse, in a time when anyone can legitimately threaten the lives of almost anyone else around the globe the world can ill afford letting such inane and violent behavior continue unabated.

    35. Re:So what? by EchaniDrgn · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps those countries are in a rather more, er, delicate state because of the effect their faith has had on their country.

      When it is acceptable for a man to kill a female family member for being raped, that's turmoil.

      And Sharia Law permits this.

      Sharia Law is Muslim law for those at home.

      Also,

      Oh, wait, you're just a typical American bigot.

      I don't see where the GP shows intolerance at all. This word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

    36. Re:So what? by hafez.parnas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      umm, scales being unequal and all that jazz, you're still a bigot. mohammad didn't rape and slaughter thousands. he was elevated to the leader of his tribe as he gained more followers, and in a effort to protect him and his followers he lead muslims in war.

      its true that there was slavery in arabia at the time of mohammad, roughly 650 AD (i hear there was slavery in the US till not too long ago)... the religion brought rules and fair treatment of slaves to the a region that even the arabs now call a region plagued by 'jahilia' (ignorance). if you read the quran instead of spouted off charged sound bites, you'd know that the quran OK's the practice of slavery in one line, and in the next line says "but it is best if you set them free". repeatedly in the quran it talks about freeing a slave (the punishment for manslaughter, the cost of remarrying your wife, the cost of breaking your vow) and prohibits both the abuse of slaves and the sources of slaves to just prisoners of war.

      personally i find the fact that this book, revealed in the 7th century to a people who called themselves 'ignorant', just set up a system for the ethical treatment of slaves and prisoners of war in one deft move impressive. it also set the framework for abolitionism in the middle east a full 12 centuries before abe lincoln. the practice of slavery is now antiquated, and disgusting universally, and that includes the 1.2billion muslims in this world.

      regarding this supposed order to kill anyone who disagreed with them...? what? also in the quran, chapter 2, verse 256. "there is no compulsion in religion". and again throughout the quran it talks about people who refuse to believe, and it tells the believers to ignore them, that god has made them this way and that god will judge them fairly.

      the quran was actually very very liberal a book in its time and in many ways still is.

      the problem with islam today is two-fold:

      a) the majority of muslims suffer from a lack of education and are as a result easily swayyed and cowed and tricked by eloquent bastards who preach hatred (there's 1.2 billion of them, and they're not all cheerfully educated in the west, and of the ones educated in the west there are two types, the type who stays in the west and tries to live a comfortable good life and the type who'll go back to their third world home and preach of the evils of the west, think harvard educated redneck bigot)

      and b) that a muslims have a hard time seeing reading between the lines of the qur'an. the qur'an again and again asks muslims to be better human beings, to let god judge, to be kind and save life ("if you save a life its as though you've saved all of humanity, and if you take a life its as though you've slaughtered all of humanity") and instead read the surface of the qur'an, which for example sets the punishment for a wayward wife as a light, beating that leaves no marks, in a time when wayward wives were killed and buried by the next morning.

      the quran set up a lot of rules for being a good muslim in 7th century arabia, and those should be a framework for being a good muslim in our connected 21st century. like the constitution of the US, which itself had rules to govern slaves, but the framework has been built upon and changed, always mindful of its original intent.

    37. Re:So what? by afabbro · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Qur'an is out of copyright by now, so what's the problem?

      It was out of copyright, until the Sunni Bono Copyright Extension Act was past.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    38. Re:So what? by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You see, the difference here, is that we have admitted our crimes, apologized, and on the whole, have attempted to move on from these wrong actions which do not, in any way, come into alignment with the one we follow (Jesus).

      The crimes of Islamic practitioners are neither hundreds of years in the past, nor have they been apologized for (nor have they ceased to occur for the most part). Islam is not a religion of peace. Some of the main tenants teach violence to all who do not follow Islam.

      The Christian religion is clear, in the new testament, that we are to forgive, turn the other cheek, and leave the punishing and judgment to someone who has the ability to do the right thing (God).

      If you think the Christian Religion is anything other than that, I encourage you to read my sig, and follow it's instructions.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    39. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mistake the errs of the ignorant, over-zealous and under-educated and hypocrites for the actions that are actually approved of by Islam. I can quote a hundred verses of the Qu'ran, all of which would condemn violence. But of course, what DOES get quoted and used most often are verses that are out of context like the ones in the summery (...which refer to the end times. But OOC they sound like they're preaching genocide or something).

      Christianity hasn't changed much since the days of the Spanish Inquisition and since Galileo's time. Christians, on the other hand, have. You can always take scripture out of context, twist it, then add a good chunk of deceit to fit your agenda. It doesn't mean the religion itself agrees with your goal, it means you're a self-serving prick who would do anything to accomplish your goals.

    40. Re:So what? by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

      > only dozens of Christians are involved in clinic bombings (and those haven't happened in many years)

      Huh? Here's one from last year: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/26/clinic.bomb/index.html

      And it's hardly an isolated incident: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

    41. Re:So what? by cl0s · · Score: 1

      The only reason the western world has less religious nutbags is because we sent most of the Jesus warriors to the middle east a few years ago.

      On a more serious note though, at least you realize that all religions had to deal with this. When people are depressed and held down by leaders though, or manipulated by other nations they seem to take religion, their only out, more seriously. Not condoning it at all, but this is probably what sped us up in helped us come out of that era.

    42. Re:So what? by nsayer · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

      Seriously, there needs to be a "-1; you didn't get the joke" moderation.

    43. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christian:
      "And consider the 19-year old Loula Abboud, a dark curl kissing her forehead and a golden cross around her neck. A Lebanese Christian, she was one of the first women to earn the title of istishhadiyah when she blew herself up in 1985 as Israeli troops moved in to capture her guerilla group near the town of Aoun in southern Lebanon."
      http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223

      Hindu:
      See the Black Tigers
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tigers

    44. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A quick Google search gave the following dates:

      Founding of Christianity: 30 AD
      Founding of Islam: 570 AD

      Considering it took Christians a bit more than 1400 years to get their whole "violence thing" right (although, with the rise of the radical evangelical movement, they seem to be regressing as of late), it's a mite hypocritical to be judging the Muslims. Not to mention the fact that you're making a sweeping generalization about 1.5 BILLION PEOPLE.

      Don't get so self-righteous, it makes you look like even more of a bigot.

    45. Re:So what? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Hey now, the Indian Wars were a shameful land grab at the behest of the wealthy and powerful, keep religion out of this. It may have worked to sell it to the masses but given a choice between friendly tribes and dead tribes I can tell you which one Andrew Jackson would have chosen.

    46. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Muslims ... Christians ..., it's disingenuous to compare one with the other.

      At the end of the day, I'm not really sure what your point is.

      That Christians are "good" because Muslims are "bad"?

      That anyone who is a Muslim is "bad"?

      That Muslims are likely to take over the USA and force everyone to be Muslim?

      That the USA should use its military to convert people to Christianity?

      That the Palestinians should be rounded up and sent to the gas chambers?

      The way I see it, there's a lot of bad stuff going on in the world but broad generalizations about religion don't really help. Specifics, sure. One could object to certain aspects of Saudi Arabia's criminal justice system, for example. Or, to take another example, one could object to certain civil laws in the USA that discriminate against gay people.

      In my view, religion is too poorly defined to be able to say that religion is "good" or "bad" or that one religion is "good" or "bad" or even "better" or "worse". Certainly, one can object to certain specific interpretations of certain specific religions.

      At the end of the day, I left thinking that maybe you just get some kind of pleasure from hating large, poorly defined, classes of people. I guess we all come to Slahsdot for one reason or another - and spreading diffuse and poorly defined hatred seems to be yours.

    47. Re:So what? by __aaojfq2958 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, can you link to any authoritative sources on that or are you just fabricating your own version of history?

      (i)
      Millions of Muslims protesting violently? If holding banners is violent then we would reach hundreds of thousands. Hardly millions.

      (ii)
      I will not repeat your offensive language regarding the Islamic history, but I'll challenge you to link to any respectable source.

    48. Re:So what? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings.

      Christians have traditionally preferred a different kind of insanity. In the not too distant past "Taming" the savages (usually by stealing their children and indoctrinating them into the religion, optionally killing or enslaving the parents), torturing people for "witchcraft", placing someone under house arrest officially because he dared to say the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe. Hell there are some people who still believe that Slavery is okay and base their beliefs on the bible. Also more recently convincing people in under developed 3rd world AIDS infested countries that using condoms will make you go to hell.

      ALL religion is a poison. Moderate religion is just smaller amounts of poison. The problem is that if you base your morality on religion, you're basing it on myths and legends that any high schooler with a rudimentary understanding of science knows can't possibly be literally true. Morality has to be based on as close to reality and critical thinking as possible, other wise it's dangerous because it can be twisted, and tends to be exclusionary and devisive.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    49. Re:So what? by mu11ingitover · · Score: 1

      Suicide bombings aren't generally linked to religion, they're linked to people fighting against democracies which are occupying their homeland. Muslims don't own the market on terrorism, in fact one of the most lethal acts of terrorism in the 20th century (the King David Hotel bombing) was perpetrated by Israelis. The reason? They wanted the British to stop occupying their homeland. Sound familiar? Other examples include Sri Lanka (suicide bombings by atheist/marxist Tamil Tigers) and even Hezbollah suicide bombers, which were 8% christian (According to the book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism"). It just so happens that a lot of Muslim areas are under occupation, so they're all getting painted with the same broad brush. Trust me, if the US were occupied by a bunch of wealthy muslims, you'd see Southern Baptists strapping on explosive belts eventually. Religion is only circumstantially linked.

    50. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I am an atheist myself, I'd say the opposite about Jesus and Mohammed - Mohammed cared about the ones close to him, while Jesus only wanted to ensure loyalty. Something along the lines:

      Jesus:
      - if you do not trust/listen to/obey me, you can leave [= burn in hell]

      Your suggestions that Mohammed "slaughtered" people is a bit misinformed. Maybe you could give some examples and I will clarify?

    51. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent. So you agree that each and every terrorist out there, or really anyone who ever engages in a war with someone who isn't clearly a combatant (and after declaring war), or anyone who's an aggressor in a war is NOT a Muslim, no?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_rules_of_war#Conduct_of_armed_forces

      Women, children, the infirm, civilians etcetc are all off limits. Goes to show you how much extremist really know about what they claim to follow.

    52. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roughly half of the population in the US is anti-choice. Out of that half, there is a sizable portion which protests outside of clinics and cheers when an abortionist is killed, or a clinic is bombed.
      The difference between this sort of Christian fundamentalism and the type we see in the Middle East with Islam is that many Muslims grow up in very poor countries and have nothing.
      The US invasion of Iraq (I'm not going to argue whether it was correct or not) also, appears to them, as a religious crusade.
      Now, if you believe strongly in a religious ideology which has just been attacked by perceptibly invincible superpower, and you have _nothing_ to lose... You get suicide bombers.

      If you want to get rid of suicide bombers, you can't simply kill them, because that creates more animosity and people with nothing to lose. If you want to get rid of suicide bombers, give these people something to lose. If Joe the potential terrorist has a house and a wife and a car and a cat and a nice job as a plumber, he's not going to be so excited about blowing himself up to get to heaven because he's got a pretty good lot in life already.

    53. Re:So what? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'm in no way condoning the abortion clinic bombings and shootings, but they're a world apart from what we're seeing in the middle east. The goal of the anti-abortion killer is to attack a very specific target with the goal of preventing them from doing something that the killer thinks is morally worse than the attack. The goal of a suicide bomber is to spread terror throughout an entire society.

      Now, both killers effect the same result: dead people. However, you can't pretend that a targeted attack against someone perceived as evil by the attacker is equivalent to an indiscriminate assault against innocents, including children.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    54. Re:So what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In all of the cases you mention, religion was not a major component. Yugoslav wars were centered around ethnicity, with religion being merely a partially determining factor for the former. Holocaust was very much not religious, though some WW2 atrocities were (e.g. Ustashe). And so on.

      Here's another take on it. Let's see how many countries in the world still have death penalty for blasphemy and/or apostasy on the books:

      • Saudi Arabia
      • Qatar
      • Yemen
      • Iran
      • Sudan
      • Afghanistan
      • Mauritania
      • Pakistan

      Guess what's the official state religion in all of them? And don't give me crap about "tyrannical monarchies" - more than half of the countries on the list above are republics, "Islamic" or otherwise.

    55. Re:So what? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The difference is, Priests on trial don't claim that it was their religious responsibility to behave that way. If you hide behind your religion to justify behavior of any kind the religion is going to take a little fire. The behavior does not reflect in and of itself on the religion, the idiotic justification for that behavior does.

    56. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]
      Find your own history book, you lazy sack of shit.

    57. Re:So what? by Silicon+Jedi · · Score: 1

      Jesus's Alignment is Neutral Good.
      God's Alignment is Lawful Good.

    58. Re:So what? by Maudib · · Score: 1

      You can't keep religion out of this. Sure the leadership was motivated by a desire for power and greed, but they couldn't have pulled it off without the consent of the people and the people were quite often motivated by "Christ's love".

      Religion is often used as a tool by the cynical to motivate the people to commit despicable crimes. However organized religion combined with the suppression of skeptics by a system predicated on the insanity that is faith make this possible.

      If people weren't encouraged by religion to subdue skepticism and accept the absurd on faith, maybe they would be less willing tools of the powerful.

    59. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, the difference here, is that we have admitted our crimes, apologized, and on the whole, have attempted to move on from these wrong actions which do not, in any way, come into alignment with the one we follow (Jesus)

      Not quite. "We" as a society may have, but the church hasn't. At least, I do not believe any Pope ever has apologized for the crusades, to name just one tiny thing. So the only reason that "we" have apologized, is because of secularism.

      And the apology thus comes from an external party, and as such is not wholly sincere; part of it is fingerpointing ("we" apologize for "their" behaviour).

      The Christian religion is clear, in the new testament, that we are to forgive, turn the other cheek, and leave the punishing and judgment to someone who has the ability to do the right thing (God).

      The current president of the US does not abide by that statement. At least, he did not "turn the other cheek" and "left the punishing and judgement to someone who has the ability" after the 9/11 events, to name just one tiny thing. And yet he claims himself to be a devout Christian, at least he did before entering the office.

      The point I'm trying to make here is not an attack on Bush's actions or the Popes' (plural), but that the moral highground you are treading does not belong to Christianity - it belongs to secularism. The only higher ground Christians have over Muslims, is that they have come to terms with secularism. And that is not their own doing.

    60. Re:So what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      On a more serious note though, at least you realize that all religions had to deal with this.

      Yes, but "not all religions are created equal". Of modern mainstream ones, Islam is the one least prepared to liberalise (because it's overly direct and dogmatic). If you'd ask me to tell one that's the most prepared, it would be Buddhism. Christianity is somewhere in the middle, but, unlike Islam, it has been declawed and defanged in the last few centuries, and is now mostly harmless not by virtue of its core doctrines, but because it had to become peaceful to survive, and there was enough ambiguity in the scriptures to pull that off. I'm afraid that this road is closed to Islam.

    61. Re:So what? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      You see laws and the twisting of science and culture coming from oppressors.

      Um, what? What science is being twisted, and how? Be specific.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    62. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.martinrothonline.com/Christians&War/Christian_suicide_bomber.htm

      First google result for "christian suicide bomber". Dumbshit.

    63. Re:So what? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      aethiesm

      And this is why the languages of the classical era should be taught in schools. FYI: it's Greek. The 'a-' prefix indicates a negation or absence, the 'the-' is short for 'theos' meaning a god, and '-ism' indicates a group, a belief or a movement. Hence 'atheism', the belief that there are no gods.

      I can't even begin to speculate on what aethiesm would be.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    64. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cutoff point is when the religion (members, text, etc) start pushing violence as the best solution. Many people of many religions have been terrorists, but there's one religion today where high-ranking leaders commonly call for the deaths of non-believers, blasphemers, rape victims, etc...

      Why is it unreasonable to look at someone's mission statement (religious texts will do) to see how they view the world and will act? Would you trust a company whose mission statement was openly "Deceive customers, provide crap, sue everyone". Would you trust a country, even Sweden or Canada, if their founding documents contained an impassioned plea for them to rule the Earth through military conquest?

      The world's history is dominated by religious genocides, it's silly to think that this process has stopped. This IS what a crusade looks like. Use your religion to vilify the enemy (Danish cartoonists?) and then call for their conquest or extinction.

      Why is it considered rude to point at lunatics, and their lunatic rantings about killing heretics, and say that they're likely to be dangerous.

    65. Re:So what? by 2short · · Score: 1

      "I can understand why the Little Big Planet studios were afraid of this."

      Horseshit. Millions of their potential customers are Muslims who might be offended enough by this to not buy their game; that's what they are "afraid" of.

    66. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The militant Muslim is the person cutting the head of the infidel while the moderate Muslim holds the victims feet." -- DR M. SABIESKI (PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY)

    67. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or WBC. Or the Revivalist/Dominionist Pentecostals that Palin has hung out with her whole life. Or any of the other Dominionists vying for political power so that they can try to push Israel in to starting their Armageddon plan for them.

      Christian fundies scare me more than Islamic fundies. Islamic fundies are poor mad men ranting and committing suicide because they're really not all that powerful. Christian fundies are powerful, influential, patient, and capable of getting their hands on real weapons.

      There may be less of them, but their motives are FAR more dangerous and much closer to becoming reality thanks to the fact that they're mostly ignored (because Christians are automatically assumed to be good people) and part of the first world.

      I ain't scared of Muslims. I'm scared of the fundie Christians actually capable of getting the power and means to end the world in a very real fashion.

    68. Re:So what? by WNight · · Score: 1

      How could you be Christian and not bomb an abortion clinic. If there is a god and life starts at conception, etc, then abortion doctors are murderers and you must attempt to stop the murder of innocents and use any means necessary.

      How could you do less if you believed? The double-thinkers are the "regular" christians who theoretically believe it's just as bad but that it should be tolerated.

    69. Re:So what? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "...In the 18th second: "kollo nafsin tha'iqatol mawt", literally: "Every soul shall have the taste of death' ... almost immediately after, in the 27th second: "kollo man alaiha fan", literally: "All that is on earth will perish.""

      -1,religionofpeace?

      --
      -Styopa
    70. Re:So what? by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Informative
      it also set the framework for abolitionism in the middle east a full 12 centuries before abe lincoln.

      Setting a framework is good. Action is better. When was slavery actually abolished in Muslim lands, and why?

      Slavery in England had been banned since at least 1215, possibly 1102, and serfdom died out by 1600; a court ruling in 1772 confirmed that no English law permitted the condition of slavery to exist in the country any way. Slavery was abolished across the whole Empire in 1807. The United States abolished slavery in 1865. Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1962.

      the practice of slavery is now antiquated, and disgusting universally, and that includes the 1.2billion muslims in this world.

      Antiquated. That's a funny way to refer to an institution that's been gone for all of 46 years.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    71. Re:So what? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Just look at what happened to Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushdie, to name just two.

      The guy was married to Padma Lakshmi, as far as I'm concerned that cancels out any complaints about the world that he may have.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    72. Re:So what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The crimes of Islamic practitioners are neither hundreds of years in the past, nor have they been apologized for (nor have they ceased to occur for the most part).

      It's far from it. The only reason that you think so is because, presently, the liberal-minded Christians form the majority, and define the mainstream interpretation of the scriptures, including the New Testament. Regardless, the latter still has enough questionable statements to justify some very nasty things, and was used as such by Christians in the past.

      Where I have to give credit to Christians relative to Muslims is that Christian scriptures are often so vague and uncertain that it is fairly easy to arrive at a mostly self-consistent liberal interpretation of them - which is precisely what was done. It's going to be much trickier with Islam, if it ever happens, because Qu'ran is much more straightforward, and you can only get so far with weasel-wording and sophistry before you find yourself obviously detached from any scriptural and dogmatic basis.

    73. Re:So what? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the West left most of their worst religious-nutball-inspired-violence behind hundreds of years ago. Muslims are still doing it.

      Well yeah, but Christianity did have a 600 year head start. Compared to 15th century Europe, their current fanatical shenanigans seem to be right on schedule.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    74. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't want my religion being judged based on abortion clinic bombers.

      Well those are anti-abortion extremists, not acting in the name of religion.

    75. Re:So what? by Maudib · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In all of the cases you mention, religion was not a major component.

      Really? The holocaust did not have religion as a major component? The collaborators, and there were an awful lot of them, were certainly motivated by religion.

      The claim that Bosnia was an ethnic conflict with out a major religious component seems disingenuous when the division between the two ethnicity was religion.

      Have you read much of the primary sources or quotes of leaders during the cold war? They routinely invoked god and atheism of communism in order to instill fear and motivate the population. The pink scare in the early 1900s was mostly built around the fact that communists were godless or jews.

      In his farewell address speaking on America's destiny (ie the conquering of NA) he said:

      "May He who holds in His hands the destinies of nations, make you worthy of the favors He has bestowed, and enable you, with pure hearts and hands and sleepless vigilance, to guard and defend to the end of time, the great charge He has committed to your keeping. "

      The whole premise of U.S. entitlement to Indian land was that GOD had chosen America. This not empty rhetoric. How else can you convince the masses of people that murder and theft is ok? It truly takes divine intervention to overcome the innate decency of humanity.

      However your argument that because religion is not the sole cause of my examples somehow discounts their validity seems absurd. Nothing significant in the politics of humanity has a single cause as it's explanation. Even in your own examples can't meet that standard. Certainly Islam is not the sole cause of those laws- the need for the regime to seem pious, the ability to silence critics, etc are additional reasons for these laws.

      The Iraq war- invocation of crusade imagery by Bush, constant rhetoric about gods work by Bush and the Evangelicals. The religious component was inescapable and significant.

      I am not saying that Islam is not violent. I totally agree with you that it is violent and oppressive. I am just asserting that Christianity is by nature no better. Religion is violent. The degree to which various religions engage in violence may wax and wane over time (likely corresponding to their influence) but in the end it doesn't matter.

      As long as religion is a significant force in Western life, we will be periodically plagued by religious nut job violence.

    76. Re:So what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      he was elevated to the leader of his tribe as he gained more followers, and in a effort to protect him and his followers he lead muslims in war.

      That's a very interesting kind of defensive war he waged there then, the one in which borders of his realm expanded manyfold...

      its true that there was slavery in arabia at the time of mohammad, roughly 650 AD (i hear there was slavery in the US till not too long ago)... the religion brought rules and fair treatment of slaves to the a region that even the arabs now call a region plagued by 'jahilia' (ignorance). if you read the quran instead of spouted off charged sound bites, you'd know that the quran OK's the practice of slavery in one line, and in the next line says "but it is best if you set them free". repeatedly in the quran it talks about freeing a slave (the punishment for manslaughter, the cost of remarrying your wife, the cost of breaking your vow) and prohibits both the abuse of slaves and the sources of slaves to just prisoners of war.

      It also okays sexual slavery and rape (and explicitly identifies it as a sole workaround for the prohibition on adultery, effectively promoting it).

      personally i find the fact that this book, revealed in the 7th century to a people who called themselves 'ignorant', just set up a system for the ethical treatment of slaves and prisoners of war in one deft move impressive.

      Oh, it's a great book for the 7th century, no arguing. Now if only the book itself didn't say that it's the final and most authoritative source on the opinion of God on all the subjects it cover, and forbade ever changing any dogma enshrined therein...

    77. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bible commands that blasphemers be put to death. Are you going to call Christians out on not following that one? Or the whole slew of other violent or intolerant things it says? Or are you a not an equal opportunity bigot?

    78. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we please separate Muslim from Arab? I'm getting sick of asking my WASP friend how many rocks she plans on throwing.

    79. Re:So what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really? The holocaust did not have religion as a major component? The collaborators, and there were an awful lot of them, were certainly motivated by religion.

      No, they were motivated by ethnicity. Not in any objective way - it can often be impossible to distinguish a European Jew from his fellow non-Jewish countrymen genetically - but Nazis had their own theories, and according to them, Jewish were ethnically and racially distinct, and their unique religion was only used as an identifying mark. Remember that the definition of a Jew in the Third Reich, for the purpose of persecution, was not "one who practices Judaism" - it was "one who is more than 1/8th Jewish by ancestry".

      The claim that Bosnia was an ethnic conflict with out a major religious component seems disingenuous when the division between the two ethnicity was religion.

      Religion is cetainly not a sole factor dividing Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs (and all of them are typically offended by such claims, except for some pan-Yugoslavists, who mostly tend to be Serbs).

      Have you read much of the primary sources or quotes of leaders during the cold war? They routinely invoked god and atheism of communism in order to instill fear and motivate the population.

      Well, yes, and Soviet aggressive anti-clericalism with massive persecution of all religions, and particularly Christians (because they were the dominant group) might have something to do with it. I'm not justifying the Red Scare, but it wasn't one-sided.

      I am not saying that Islam is not violent. I totally agree with you that it is violent and oppressive. I am just asserting that Christianity is by nature no better. Religion is violent. The degree to which various religions engage in violence may wax and wane over time (likely corresponding to their influence) but in the end it doesn't matter.

      That's where we disagree. Judging by what I see, it seems that Christianity has been on the steady decline as far as violence is concerned for the last several centuries. It's unmistakenly the influence of the rising secular rational consciousness in the West, so Christians shouldn't claim much credit for that - but, they did adapt pretty well. There's more to be desired, of course, but the tendency is clear, and the present level is tolerable.

      Islam, in contrast, seems to be ramping up its violence component for the last half a century or so, and its mainstream shifting more and more from the liberal interpretations to fundamentalism.

    80. Re:So what? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Or burn people at the stake.
      Or lynch people for the color of their skin.
      Or torture people to "confess" their sins.

      You seem to be living under a rock, Christians do it to this day.
      And Jesus explicitly said he came to enforce the old ways.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    81. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, the difference here, is that we have admitted our crimes, apologized, and on the whole, have attempted to move on from these wrong actions which do not, in any way, come into alignment with the one we follow (Jesus).

      Of course the terrorism & violence in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with religion.
      Religions are not inherently violent, they are, however, used as tools by some to manipulate the masses into violence. Look through history and pretty much every major religion in the west has been used to both justify genocide and promote peace.

    82. Re:So what? by chromatic · · Score: 1

      I can't even begin to speculate on what aethiesm would be.

      The worship of ancient ligatures?

    83. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Muslim Genocide in the 90s. 250,000 murdered "
      Oh, really?.. In the 90s... 250 thou... Unless you provide any serious source you're a bigoted moron.

      Killing millions of Jews, Native Americans, anybody else is all true, but it doesn't mean that it's OK for Muslims to do the same. At least don't expect Westerners to cower before you, as Jews, Native Americans and others didn't.

      "religious violence is rampant in the West to this day"
      Yup. There's thousands of cases when Christians killed just because some artist/writer/anybody offended their feelings in the last couple of years, right?

      "That is because religion is by necessity, violent."
      Does the word 'Buddhism' sound familiar to you?

    84. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So people that kill themselves and others to make a point are worse than people that only kill other people? WTF?

    85. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? The Holocaust was a Christian war? Not quite, but thanks for playing.

      Similarly, your other examples are ones where a very few stood aside from the many and said they did it in gawd's name. To this day people do this to justify their appalling behavior, but it's clearly not a persistent problem plaguing a large population of Christian followers.

      Fuck man, I'm an atheist, and even I can't swallow that nonsense.

    86. Re:So what? by Wicked+Zen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "...In the 18th second: "kollo nafsin tha'iqatol mawt", literally: "Every soul shall have the taste of death' ... almost immediately after, in the 27th second: "kollo man alaiha fan", literally: "All that is on earth will perish.""

      -1,religionofpeace?

      Please explain how these two sentences are unpeaceful.

      Or are you expecting to never die?

    87. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your argument is that if you kill yourself during the process then it is violence.

      How many links of bombings you want me to send you that were done by christains for christainity. Do you know that KKK constitution is actually based on bible.

      Also US (which is not a muslim contry) is the only country that has been proven guilty of terrorism.

    88. Re:So what? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I think you forget the part where Jesus says he is there to enforce the old laws.

      Mathew 5:17, if memory serves.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    89. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude go fuck yourself.

      Arabic Muslims in Mauritania still have slaves today.

    90. Re:So what? by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      The Qur'an is out of copyright by now, so what's the problem?

      I appreciate the joke, but the answer is kind of interesting. Unlike the Bible, which was written by many people in many languages over a long period, the Qur'an was dictated by Muhammad. According to Muslims, it's a copy of the Qur'an which exists in Heaven, and is the literal, untranslated word of God. (God speaks medieval Arabic, you see.) So copies on Earth, even quotes, are sacred in a way that a quote from the Bible isn't for Christians (AFAIK). For example, newspapers in Muslim countries don't quote the Qur'an, because disposing of the newspaper in a regular way would be disrespectful or blasphemous.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    91. Re:So what? by Maudib · · Score: 1

      Remember that the definition of a Jew in the Third Reich, for the purpose of persecution, was not "one who practices Judaism" - it was "one who is more than 1/8th Jewish by ancestry".

      I wasn't talking about the German Nazis. I was talking about the Catholic and French collaborators who may have used Nazi legal criteria but still acting out of ancient hatred founded in religion.

      Religion is cetainly not a sole factor dividing Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs (and all of them are typically offended by such claims, except for some pan-Yugoslavists, who mostly tend to be Serbs).

      I didn't say it was a sole factor. It was a major factor though. You can't have a bunch of Christians running around killing Muslims and then say that religion was really secondary. Even making the distinction between religion and ethnic divides is a bit extreme when ethnicity was largely predicated on the differences in religion.

      That's where we disagree. Judging by what I see, it seems that Christianity has been on the steady decline as far as violence is concerned for the last several centuries.

      I would say that Christian violence remains proportional to Christian influence. The fact is that most people don't really believe anymore in the west, so there is a lot less violence on those lines. It is still pretty rampant.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

    92. Re:So what? by Maudib · · Score: 1

      "Oh, really?.. In the 90s... 250 thou... Unless you provide any serious source you're a bigoted moron."

      Remember Bosnia? http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm

      Killing millions of Jews, Native Americans, anybody else is all true, but it doesn't mean that it's OK for Muslims to do the same

      I agree. They are all assholes. Its like arguing over who is worse though, Chrales Manson or the Son of Sam. Ultimately I want them both off the streets.

      "Does the word 'Buddhism' sound familiar to you?"

      Quite familiar. Every hear of the LTTE in Sri Lanka?

      http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm

      Of course various branches of Budhism have sprung. In Japan various zen philosophy and samurai go hand in hand. Many Zen philosophers wrote in fervent support of Japan's wars of aggression.

      Many of the martial arts of the east were created by Budhist monks.

      There's thousands of cases when Christians killed just because some artist/writer/anybody offended their feelings in the last couple of years, right?

      There are fewer examples of Christian violence the Islamic violence, but I would argue that this is because Christians are less influential in the west then Muslims are in the middle east. That said there are plenty examples of extremists killings gays, minorities, medical professionals involved in abortion to pretty much prove the point.

    93. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed in the middle ages or as it was also known "dark ages". Not really current now is it?

    94. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not inspired by the New Testament. Jesus said, "Love your enemies." There is nothing to contradict this. On the other hand, have you ever *actually* read the Qur'an?

    95. Re:So what? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Practice highly visible public heresy, for example by quoting particularly unflattering passages of a particular religion's holy book. Now: how many death threats do you receive? If the answer is not "zero", then you can start with the snide remarks.

      Well, if you did that with the Christian Bible, you're bound to get at least a couple of death threats from crazy fundamentalists. So, can we make the snide remarks now?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    96. Re:So what? by dangitman · · Score: 0, Troll

      but there's one religion today where high-ranking leaders commonly call for the deaths of non-believers, blasphemers, rape victims, etc...

      The US government? The Republican Party?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    97. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U just have to love how responses can be censored in seconds without being checked for validity..

    98. Re:So what? by hafez.parnas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing to note is that with Islam and the Quran, even amongst native arab speakers there are variations in the translations of a verse. This has to do with several things, not the least of which is that arabic now is different than arabic then. Another very important mitigating factor in the translation and understanding of a verse in the Quran is the circumstance in which it was revealed.

      In the case of the verse you're referring to, about marrying slave women Quran, chapter 4, verse 24... another translation can be found that says :

      [4:24] Also prohibited are the women who are already married, unless they flee their disbelieving husbands who are at war with you. These are GOD's commandments to you. All other categories are permitted for you in marriage, so long as you pay them their due dowries. You shall maintain your morality, by not committing adultery. Thus, whoever you like among them, you shall pay them the dowry decreed for them. You commit no error by mutually agreeing to any adjustments to the dowry. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

      In this case, it appears this verse was revealed as a result of a woman who captured as a slave during war, converts to Islam and wants to marry again but her husband, being a alive and well in enemy lands for obvious reasons can't or wont grant her a divorce. Furthermore, by marrying the woman she's gained the rights and respect that a wife has. And to marry her you need permission as such, from her and her guardians. Any child she bears while married is also free.

      The same wikipedia article you linked notes:

      Fornication (sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other) is regarded as an offence. Muhammad gave exemplary punishment to owners of brothels that were operated using their slave-women for such pleasures.

      Of course a backwards Muslim looking for justification for a quick screw or something much worse will look to this verse and other translations and find what he's looking for, just as a person looking to vilify Islam, the Quran and Mohammad will do the same. That's the problem, a limited interpretation. The same ideology that allowed for limited interpretations that have prevented Christians from getting divorces, contraceptives, allowed for the crusades and the inquisition, prohibited a proper burial if they committed suicide and many other stupid backwards prohibitions. It took Christianity nearly two millenia to get to where it is now, and it still has a internal strife. Jewdaism has its own many conservative laws which most would look upon as archaic (or even Islamic?) as seen in their ultra-orthodox communities and they've had considerably longer to come to grips with a changing world and the changing nature of human rights.

      Give muslims the benefit of another 600 years and I'm sure they'll come around? :P

      Just reiterating my original point, it was a framework from which muslims became better people, and for a great long while were considerably more civilized and cultured than the west, but a neoconservative movement picked up at some point (read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd-al-Wahhab ) and retarded the natural advancement of human rights. Part of it was in response to a rising colonial power to the west, part of it was due to divisive domestic politics... If anything the US and the modern civilized world should consider what happened to the great Islamic empire as a warning of what can happen when progress is shunned and fundamentalism is exalted.

    99. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't anyone who is violent be considered extreme?

    100. Re:So what? by AlXtreme · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a deeper problem with Islam than merely a lack of education or not reading between the lines of the Qur'an.

      First, the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah/God. The words came to Muhammad, who wrote it down word by word (at least, so Muslims believe). This in contrast with the old and new testament, which were written by disciples. The difference is slight, but this difference means (according to Islam) that no deviation from the Qur'an is possible. Where Judaism/Christianity are able to interpret their holy books differently, Islam specifically forbids this as theirs is the direct word of God. Changing a single word would be sacrilegious, even translating the Qur'an was considered problematic (for it is no longer the direct word of God after translation).

      Thus, a true Muslim will not read between the lines of the Qur'an, for he/she is not allowed to.

      A second deeper problem is that Islam is more than just the Qur'an. Scribes/imams have interpreted the Qur'an in certain ways, leading to laws for Islam (Sharia). These are the laws that (in certain regions) prescribe hangings and stoning of (in our eyes) innocents.

      The Catch-22 is that (again, in certain areas) these laws are unchangeable without near-unanimous support, but that wanting to change them would lead to persecution. Why? Allah is perfect, thus he wouldn't mislead the imams into making false statements about the word of god. Thus the Sharia must be correct. Over time, the laws have snowballed into something that for a Muslim from the 7th century wouldn't even be recognized as Islam.

      Over time (and unlike Judaism/Christianity) Islam has become less moderate. It was indeed quite a liberal religion in the early centuries (at the time) but these two facets of Islam, often overlooked, have lead to a religion that isn't susceptible to change.

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    101. Re:So what? by cl0s · · Score: 1

      How do you figure this is the case though? Last I heard (being lazy in looking up figures) UK's second largest religion is Islam on its way to be first. The UK is not dealing with daily suicide bombings or are they in any worse of a situation as far as terrorism goes than the US.

      The US I can also assure you has a higher population of Muslims than Jews, Buddist or any other religion besides Christianity and more people die here from peanut allergies each year than terrorist. We have a bigger problem with school shootings, and none of those kids have yet to be Muslim.

    102. Re:So what? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Now: how many death threats do you receive?

      Fuck me, if your criteria is 0<death threats, then Christianity and Muslims are pretty much neck and neck. Get your head out of the sand and find me something better, jackass.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    103. Re:So what? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      You sure? Big media companies do that stuff all the time and I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe it happens but they just ignore it, it's possible, but you'd think such things would be made known.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    104. Re:So what? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've never so much as heard of anyone receiving a death threat for publishing an anti-Christian cartoon or depicting Jesus. Got cite?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    105. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Most but not all. I wouldn't want my religion being judged based on abortion clinic bombers.

      And a hundred years ago, I bet people said "I wouldn't want my religion judged based on those Underground Railroad types." (For those unfamiliar with American history, the Underground Railroad was a network of anti-slavery activists who helped southern US slaves escape to the freedom of the Northern states.)

      "Legal" does not equal "right." Then, or now.

    106. Re:So what? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You sure? Big media companies do that stuff all the time and I've never heard of such a thing.

      Got any examples? I don't recall any recent "highly visible public blashpemy" of the type you refer to.

      All I know is that I've received death threats for criticising Christianity on website discussions. And that artists like Serrano receive death theats and actual violence against their property for making Christian-themed artwork. And those aren't exactly "highly visible" examples.

      It seems it doesn't take much to rile the fundamentalists up - witness the shouted threats from the audience at recent McCain speeches.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    107. Re:So what? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      You're right. Homosexuals, Abortion doctors, and little altar boys don't live in fear at all...

    108. Re:So what? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Just off the top of my head, you have Homer Simpson meeting God at least once, a somewhat well-known science fiction writer doing a parody of Inferno with the hero as a science fiction writer who tries to rationalize Hell as an alien amusement park, and Penny Arcade frequently features Jesus who "throws up the horns" and "is fucking metal". LucasArts wrote a game in the 90s which put the player in charge of Heaven and Hell. The movies Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty depict God for the purposes of comedy, and they're hardly the only place that's been done. I've never heard of any of these places getting death threats.

      Maybe it happens though, and they just disregard them because those threats are empty. Perhaps I should tighten my standards. It only counts if you receive real death threats, i.e. threats that have a good potential for being carried out. That's a big difference between pissing off Christians and Muslims. The Christian death threats are nearly always just a level beyond "may you rot in Hell forever", a curse. Muslim death threats frequently result in a (sometimes successful) attempt on the target's life.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    109. Re:So what? by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      I can't even begin to speculate on what aethiesm would be.

      The revelation of the divinity of the universal medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

    110. Re:So what? by discogravy · · Score: 1

      past what?

    111. Re:So what? by Iftekhar25 · · Score: 1

      You make the (stupid) mistake of associating a centuries-old religion with its followers from nothing other than soundbites from the news.

      The fatwa on Salman Rushdie was universally condemned by Muslims and Muslim scholars at the time it was issued; not a good soundbite to sell rags.

      The murder of Theo Van Gogh was also universally condemned by Muslims and Muslim scholars. But no, you want to correlate the actions of hopeless, uneducated people with the religion. I guess you need a scapegoat, so, sure. Knock yourself out. Blame a 1400-year-old religion that does not have a single complete incarnation of itself in any government of the world.

      By pointing your finger at a religion and blaming it (basically punching a wall) you do a disservice to those who are really looking for a peaceful existence, by ignoring the real issues of the human condition in hopeless, helpless people who are feeling disenfranchised for whatever twisted reasons.

      But no, please. Don't sympathize. Don't empathize. In fact, totally ignore the human element in all this (the only element that really matters?). "Religion of peace... hah. Sure." Great help you are.

    112. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslims are the most dominant religion in the world. They number in the billions from Africa to North America. Mohammad is the most common name in the world. And they are all nutball inspired religious fanatics.

    113. Re:So what? by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      http://www.martinrothonline.com/Christians&War/Christian_suicide_bomber.htm "If youâ(TM)re World War II kamikaze pilot Ichizo Hayashi you write a final letter to your mother stating that âoefor to me, to live is Christ and to die is gainâ and you vow to âoebe sure to sink an enemy vessel.â Then you fly off on your deadly mission with your Bible and hymn book." http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223 "And consider the 19-year old Loula Abboud, a dark curl kissing her forehead and a golden cross around her neck. A Lebanese Christian, she was one of the first women to earn the title of istishhadiyah when she blew herself up in 1985 as Israeli troops moved in to capture her guerilla group near the town of Aoun in southern Lebanon." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821425/posts "The spokesman of the Orthodox Church praised suicide activities carried out by Palestinians deep inside the Hebrew State [Israel] in the name of religion (Ist'sh'had). He emphasized that 'the suicide bombers who carry out their activities in the name of religion are national [Islamic] heroes and we're proud of them."

    114. Re:So what? by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      Uh. If I knew how to edit or clean up a post, I'd make the above readable. >_

    115. Re:So what? by Danse · · Score: 1

      Maybe instead of snide remarks you might want to pursue more constructive ways of enlightening people of any faith who engage in violence. Or does your religion tell you that snide remarks are the answer?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    116. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

    117. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got the Oklahoma City bombing, all those NRA bombings, and abortion clinic bombings (I think -- maybe those were just plain non-suicide bombings) to name several. I'm not going to dig up articles for these look them up yourself.

                Oklahoma City and the NRA bombings can be explained in non-religions ways for sure. But so can all these Muslim suicide bombings.

                As a direct parallel to these creepy militaristic muslim training camps, you have "white separatists" and the like in remote areas in the US, who also tend to be religiously nutty. So they've got the stuff about the 72 virgins and so on, the bible's got plenty of old-testament kill 'em all type stuff as well. In both cases it takes a real nutter to take it seriously.

                Now, of course this doesn't add up to "everyone". If you want to see shinto and buddhists fighting, though, look into japan's history. Buddhists are supposed to be pacifists, but certainly they were not all the time.

    118. Re:So what? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Just off the top of my head, you have Homer Simpson meeting God at least once, a somewhat well-known science fiction writer doing a parody of Inferno with the hero as a science fiction writer who tries to rationalize Hell as an alien amusement park, and Penny Arcade frequently features Jesus who "throws up the horns" and "is fucking metal".

      What? How is any of that even close to disparagingly quoting the bible? Your context also implied a "real" setting such as politics or public speeches, not fiction or comedy.

      It only counts if you receive real death threats, i.e. threats that have a good potential for being carried out.

      So, how do you know? Until it is carried out, you don't. Sounds like you are just shifting the goalposts to suit your argument.

      The Christian death threats are nearly always just a level beyond "may you rot in Hell forever", a curse. Muslim death threats frequently result in a (sometimes successful) attempt on the target's life.

      Got any statistics or actual data on that? You'd have to at least know how many muslims made death threats to know if that's true or not. And then you'd have to correlate it with the actual murders.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    119. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hitler was a saint or bishop
      is that questionable?

    120. Re:So what? by ScrumHalf · · Score: 1

      the majority of republicans suffer from a lack of education and are as a result easily swayyed and cowed and tricked by eloquent bastards who preach hatred

      Fixed.

    121. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To mockingly say "Religion of Peace indeed", and imply that Muslims in general are engaging in violence, is not only unfair it's bigotry.

      It's perfectly fair as far as any member of a flying spaghetti monster fanclubs - be it christian or muslim or whatever - is engaging in violence in the name of their sillyne..sorry, religion.

    122. Re:So what? by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      Wow, the "moral equivalism" bullshit response. I didn't see that one coming .

    123. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres tons of fucked up shit hardcore christian groups do in the US, it just doesn't get much media attention.

    124. Re:So what? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of any way to enlighten people who feel that murder is an acceptable, nay desired, response to another person's perceived blasphemy. Being snide is at least entertaining, and no less effective than anything else. Do you know of some way to influence such people?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    125. Re:So what? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that depicting Jesus as "throwing up the horns" is far worse than disparagingly quoting the bible. That's why I didn't go looking for examples of heretical bible verse usage: the American media does things that are vastly worse regularly.

      As for legitimate death threats, I have no statistics, because I have not studied the problem that extensively. However, just off the top of my head I can name two people who have been killed by Muslims for disparaging their religion, and a third who has received a death threat not just from a random person but from the supreme leader of a fairly powerful middle eastern country, who has subsequently survived an assassination attempt, and who has had several people associated with him killed.

      I know of nobody who has even received death threats from Christians for going against their religion (although I do not doubt that it has happened) and nobody who has actually been killed as a result. Perhaps this is simply my bias filtering the world. If so, please inform me of some people who have been seriously threatened or assassinated (again, in modern times) by Christians because of something said against their religion.

      Lastly, you seem to fall for the classic programmer's fallacy that if something is not absolutely objectively possible to determine, then it cannot be determined at all. While there are many gray areas, it is possible to at least somewhat verify the seriousness of a death threat. If it comes from some person you've never heard of, who has no known ties to any groups known to carry out killings, it is very probably not serious. If it comes, for example, from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, then you should legitimately fear for your life.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    126. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > First, the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah/God.

      Which also was supposed to be the case for the Bible and whatever the Pope says.
      Actually as far as I can tell, make that an "is". Even though the bible is acknowledged to be written by many people it is still supposed to be the word of God.
      The difference is that those who take it seriously in that way are a minority everywhere (no surprise it, that's much more convenient anyway when you can reinterpret
      it however you like, you can do whatever you want including war and killing and still claim God on your side!) there are still a lot of places where
      it is advantageous for those in power to disallow questioning the Qur'an, so that view of it is kept up.
      Muslims and Christians are just on the same level of gullible, fear-mongering, power-hungry etc. as everyone else, just the current preconditions are a bit different for both currently.

      > but these two facets of Islam, often overlooked, have lead to a religion that isn't susceptible to change.

      Are you so convinced about that? Isn't it maybe that back then the Islamic nations were at the height in science, education etc. and nowadays Christians are in that position and the Muslims tend to live
      in Tyrannies? I think you do not know many good talkers if you don't think the right couple of people could not make the Qur'an mean whatever they wanted, particularly once most people have read as little of it as e.g. I read of the Bible.

    127. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

    128. Re:So what? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You mean, you didn't expect anybody to tell the truth?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    129. Re:So what? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      umm, scales being unequal and all that jazz, you're still a bigot. mohammad didn't rape and slaughter thousands. he was elevated to the leader of his tribe as he gained more followers, and in a effort to protect him and his followers he lead muslims in war.

      Led them in war, raping and slaughtering their enemies. Muhammad said that Christians and Jews were people of the book and to be protected but when his interests came into opposition with some Jewish merchants, he slaughtered them and took their shit. Dude, get with the pogrom!

      its true that there was slavery in arabia at the time of mohammad, roughly 650 AD (i hear there was slavery in the US till not too long ago)... the religion brought rules and fair treatment of slaves to the a region that even the arabs now call a region plagued by 'jahilia' (ignorance). if you read the quran instead of spouted off charged sound bites, you'd know that the quran OK's the practice of slavery in one line, and in the next line says "but it is best if you set them free". repeatedly in the quran it talks about freeing a slave (the punishment for manslaughter, the cost of remarrying your wife, the cost of breaking your vow) and prohibits both the abuse of slaves and the sources of slaves to just prisoners of war.

      How many people really read and understood the texts versus waving around unread copies of the book while using it to justify whatever the hell they already wanted to do? I mean honestly, did God really come down and tell the Israelites that Canaan was theirs or did the elders look down upon the fertile valley and say "Wow, this looks great. Now how are we going to convince our people to risk getting killed so we can have it? Oh, right: we're on a mission from God!"

      personally i find the fact that this book, revealed in the 7th century to a people who

      If by "revealed" you mean "made up"...

      called themselves 'ignorant', just set up a system for the ethical treatment of slaves and prisoners of war in one deft move impressive. it also set the framework for abolitionism in the middle east a full 12 centuries before abe lincoln. the practice of slavery is now antiquated, and disgusting universally, and that includes the 1.2billion muslims in this world.

      Tell that to the foreigners brought in to work as wage slaves and indentured servants in the prosperous Arab countries. Slavery is still in full effect, it's just been rebranded and marketed under another name.

      regarding this supposed order to kill anyone who disagreed with them...? what? also in the quran, chapter 2, verse 256. "there is no compulsion in religion". and again throughout the quran it talks about people who refuse to believe, and it tells the believers to ignore them, that god has made them this way and that god will judge them fairly.

      Yeah, just like Jesus says turn the other cheek. And how many wars were fought beneath a banner with a cross on it?

      the quran was actually very very liberal a book in its time and in many ways still is.

      It was invented by a murderer and asshole. But don't feel bad, the same goes for most religious books. And even if there's good stuff in there to read and reflect upon, the worst assholes out there are running off their own ignorant interpretation that justifies anything they already want to do. I mean, how else can you explain the just punishment for an unvirtuous woman to be a rape and beating by virtuous men? What, is carnal contact permitted so long as their cocks are doing the work of Allah? "Behold, woman, I fucketh thee in the name of Allah so you may know his justice and mercy!"

      the problem with islam today is two-fold:

      a) the majority of muslims suffer from a lack of education and are as a result easily swayyed and cowed and tricked by eloquent bastards who preach hatred (there's 1.2 billion of them, and they're

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    130. Re:So what? by knutkracker · · Score: 1

      Some very good points, but as I understand it (if you'll pardon my lack of references), the often conflicting commands of the Quran are a large part of the problem. For every peaceful/sensible command there is a bloodthirsty/unpleasant one that a hateful preacher can counter it with. The same can be said for the Bible of course, but it does make me wonder why God's prophets can't just be consistent with themselves.

      As an aside, it may not really be the Quran that is at fault with regards to suicide bombings, but the sexual mores of arab culture (see point 4), which due to polygamy, leave a large pool of young men with no wife and no access to casual sex. Far easier to whip people up into an angry frenzy if they're not getting any.

    131. Re:So what? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Please link to some news stories of Christian suicide bombings.

      How about a Christian suicide fire? In the end, David Koresh and a bunch of people who thought they were Christians burned about 76 people to death. They were his family and followers, but they were his victims nonetheless.

      How about one group of people who thought they were Christians bombing the church of another group of Christians, killing four children and injuring 22 others?

      It doesn't matter whether the amoral crazies kill in the name of God or Allah or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whether they kill with bombs or guns or machetes, killing innocents instead of your enemy is always wrong. One is rarely justified in making war on one's enemies, but one is never justified in killing anyone else for leverage.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    132. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

      Not exactly suicide, but close enough.

    133. Re:So what? by Maudib · · Score: 1

      Dude, I didn't say that the fucking holocaust was a Christian war. I said that there were a lot of French collaborators during the German occupation, and Catholic collaborators at the Vatican who were motivated by ancient religious hatred and helped the Nazis murder machine for that reason.

    134. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't say he raped and murdered thousands, but the historical record generally indicates that he was not the nicest guy in the world who loved puppy dogs.

      Attempting to limit the slave trade to the Europeans for all those centuries is just counterproductive to your argument. While some African slaves were bought from tribes who sold them after capturing them in warfare, the vast majority were taken by Muslims.

      No compulsion in religion? What about apotasy? What about jizya? Etc.

      I believe that the list of main problems you listed with islam today are actually at its core and until the overwhelmingly majority mainstream Muslims repudiate them, as has happened in other Abrahamic religions, they will remain problems.

      For instance your point a. Islam, to my understanding, means submission. In fact in paradise (as stated in 23:101), there is no "neither will they question one another". So if you're taught that the most enjoyable existence that you can expect is filled with gently accepting what is taught to you, why would you strive to improve your education level? Furthermore, to try and assert that only the poor ignorant people commit the terrorist acts ignores the fact that . And while I don't consider all Muslims to be terrorists, I do believe that it is enshrined in their religion. The G.P. who cared for my brother, sister, and myself when I was a child was an Indian immigrant who happened to be Muslim. If I was still living in the same area, he would still be my doctor; especially considering his considerable skill at suturing.

      Your point b is interesting because of the fact of abrogation, as permitted in Surahs 16:101 and 2:106. So, without being a full-time Qurinic scholar, how is the average lay-person to know which Surah is correct and which has been overturned?

      I also strongly disagree with your assertion about the Quran being a good set of rules in the 6th Century and ALSO being a good set of rules today. It's taught my Islamic jurisprudence that there is no other law that Allah's law, which has been interpreted, and withstood the test of time/inquiry, as Sharia. A harsh and brutal system that leaves little room for innovation or critical thinking.

    135. Re:So what? by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Sigh.

      Why can't we have an intelligent discussion instead of going for the throat every post?

      First, let me address your comments. The actions of those who have raped children, killed doctors, or abused homosexuals are abhorrent to anyone who actually practices what the Christian faith preaches.

      You see, people can say they are a Christian, but that does not mean that every action that person does is de facto a Christian action.

      So, again, you see the difference here is that the Christian Religion does not condone the actions of those people (nor does it truly condone the Crusades or many other things that people in the church have done in the "name of God" over the centuries. The big point here is that our holy texts clearly show these actions to be abhorrent. The holy texts of Islam clearly show these actions to be not only accepted, but required to be a true follower. I have read the scriptures of the Qur'an that are often quoted and have looked at the context of the passages. It is clear that killing someone who is not of the faith is a common theme, and is expected of any practitioner of this faith. It is clear that this is not simply references to previous wars, but is clearly about a current war against all who will not choose to follow their way.

      So how anyone can take a religion like Christianity that preaches turning the other cheek, has a leader (Christ) who saved a whore from the letter of the law (by not allowing the religious leaders of that day to follow the letter of the law and stone her to death), and teaches its followers to reach across racial, social, and economic barriers, and compare it to a religion like Islam that encourages killing those who refuse to follow their way is beyond me. There is no comparison. Christ taught that all of Christianity can be summed up as this: "Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." I just don't see how this type of faith can be considered similar to the religion of Islam.

      Before the flame wars begin again, please keep in mind that I am clearly talking about the religions not those who claim they follow that faith.

      And to bring this whole comment back on topic, it is ridiculous that any faith should try to restrict the uses of their holy texts. This use was obviously one that fell under Fair Use, so the US copies should not have had to have this removed. What kind of religion wants to keep people from being introduced to it's holy scriptures? That kind of controlling attitude is what caused the Christian church to have so many problems back in the day (and only letting the "elite" see the scriptures was not part of the Christian faith, just some power hungry individuals not letting anyone else come to any conclusions about their faith). This kind of bullying should be fought back against, and with as much force as is needed.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    136. Re:So what? by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      No, I mean exactly what I said: your argument is moral equivalism bullshit.

    137. Re:So what? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      So, it's OK when the US does those things, but not when Muslims do? We've killed and raped lot more of them than they have us in the latest war. I guess you must be a moral exceptionalist - "your side" gets a free pass, while anybody else does anything, and they are evil.

      I just answered factually. The other post claimed there was only one religion that did those things. I pointed out that it's not true.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    138. Re:So what? by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      1. You did not provide any facts (at least not in the post I responded to; maybe you have in other posts in this topic, but I haven't been keeping very good track of who-said-what)

      2. You don't seem to understand the definition of "moral equivalism". The things you are talking about are all completely different in nature: the scope of the issue, who was involved, what the circumstances were, during what time period they occurred, how controversial the details are, etc. They are all completely different. Trying to treat them all the same is moral equivalism, and it's just pointless.

      It's ridiculous to me how many people always want to respond in discussions about muslim violence with statements about how "the US government does the same thing". First of all, it's not relevent to the discussion, it's off-topic and just adds noise to an already noisy debate, and second of all, it's pointless to even try to make such comparisons because to do so is pointless moral equivalism.

      I'm not going to argue with you whether or not it's more or less "OK" for the US government to kill people than muslims, because it's just such a stupid and pointless debate, and moreover, because it's off-topic. Your *wanting* it to be on topic because you want to complain about the US government does not make it on topic.

    139. Re:So what? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Why can't we have an intelligent discussion instead of going for the throat every post?

      Because when such ludicrous statements are made, it deserves no less of a response.

      For a religion that practices peace, it does little to enforce it. There also seems to be a high number of people who rise to positions of powers in it over the years that by your claim aren't really christian. They can often quote all kinds of bible versus to back up what they do, so it would seem the bible being a thing of peace is a matter of interpretation. The bible encourages people to go out and spread the word of god and frankly its full of violence, especially the old testament.
      When you have something like revelations in there, how can you expect devout worshipers to not lose their shit when they think about a family member, close friend, loved one, etc not getting in to heaven if they don't believe?

      Christianity is a religion of hypocrisy. Were it truly a religion of peace, they would cast out anyone who committed a violent act in the name of Christianity, but they often don't. Instead they may condemn it, but don't really do anything so they don't technically have to get their hands dirty and it wasn't "Christianity" that did it. Were it a religion of peace, hundreds and thousands of churches wouldn't preach hate against homosexuals and other groups.

    140. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese made use of suicide pilots in WW II and the Vietnamese took advantage of suicide bombers during the Vietnam war. The Japanese at the time believed the Emperor was some sort of living god and the Vietnamese were mostly Buddhists. Buddhists don't promise a bunch of virgins when you die - they tell you that your matter will live on, but the whole conscious reincarnation thing is kind of up in the air. Buddhism fits with science nicely - they both agree that the matter which composes your dead body has the potential to feed all kinds of life forms and in essence become a part of them.

      I think the reason you've never heard of Christian suicide bombers is because you're stupid. I would bet money that you've seen a war movie - probably based on a true story - which has some scene in which a soldier runs at the enemy with a hand grenade or something so his buddies or his cause can survive. Then we call it "sacrificing his life," not "suicide," which is what it was. Then we honor it and are emotionally touched by it because someone like us gave his life to do the right thing - or, in other words - kill bad guys.

      How does that have anything to do with religion? Religion may help one to work up the balls to commit such an act, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find even an atheist who wouldn't sacrifice his life for his kids. In a war time situation it's the same thing. The Vietnam commander tells his subordinate: "Suicide bomb that tent or they will air raid us all." What's the fucking difference?

      My point being: When people become so pissed off or hopeless that their life doesn't seem worth anything, they will die so the cause of their anger or despondency will also die or suffer greatly. People like that are dangerous - people who will fight to the death because they feel they have to. But it's not their religion which drives Middle Easterners to suicide bomb - that's just grease on the axle - it's Israel, England, and the United States.

      At one point I could debate a solution to the entire clusterfuck but Bush screwed it all up so bad I think we're even beyond theoretical solutions. But blaming their religion is just divisive and worsens the problem.

    141. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are suicide bombings so much worse than regular homicide bombings?

    142. Re:So what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      hat's the problem, a limited interpretation. The same ideology that allowed for limited interpretations that have prevented Christians from getting divorces, contraceptives, allowed for the crusades and the inquisition, prohibited a proper burial if they committed suicide and many other stupid backwards prohibitions. It took Christianity nearly two millenia to get to where it is now, and it still has a internal strife. Jewdaism has its own many conservative laws which most would look upon as archaic (or even Islamic?) as seen in their ultra-orthodox communities and they've had considerably longer to come to grips with a changing world and the changing nature of human rights.

      Give muslims the benefit of another 600 years and I'm sure they'll come around? :P

      That's the problem. We don't have 600 years. If there is to be no culture clash war, we don't even have 100 years.

      Also, if 600 years is what it took for someone to get there in the first place, then shouldn't it serve as an example for the rest, allowing them to do it much sooner? Similarly, it took a long time for the first country to officially ban slavery, but once that happened, all others were in an awkward moral position, the only way out of which was to follow suit - which they did reasonably quickly.

    143. Re:So what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How do you figure this is the case though? Last I heard (being lazy in looking up figures) UK's second largest religion is Islam on its way to be first. The UK is not dealing with daily suicide bombings or are they in any worse of a situation as far as terrorism goes than the US.

      I'm not afraid of Islamic "bombist" terrorism as such - it's really mostly just a scarecrow for the US and UK public. It's this sort of thing that I'm more worried about. One bad thing about democracy is that one can always use one's vote to shut it down...

    144. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the practice of slavery is now antiquated, and disgusting universally

      What a joke! It appears you haven't been keeping up with current events, as there are more slaves now than in ANY point in history. Time for your lesson:

      http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/online_extra.html

    145. Re:So what? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to type "-1, religionofwecan'ttakeajoke"

      --
      -Styopa
    146. Re:So what? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      umm, scales being unequal and all that jazz, you're still a bigot.

      And that's when I stopped reading your post. If you can't avoid ad hominem attacks, then you've already lost the debate. You can't deny that millions of Muslims protest violently when someone "insults" their religion; the same simply isn't true of Christians (or Jews, or Buddhists, or many other religions). It's also historically true that Mohammad invaded other tribes' regions, enslaved their women, and killed their men. Calling me a bigot for pointing out historical truth is farcical.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    147. Re:So what? by jmhoule314 · · Score: 1

      http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/30/1446211

      ^^^ I was being sarcastic. Except the part about us being fat. That is 100% sincere.

    148. Re:So what? by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Again, you are mistaking those who claim to be Christian with the actual religion of Christianity. Christ himself warned Christians about false teachers/preachers/prophets:

      15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

      21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

      - The teachings of Jesus as recorded by Matthew 7:15-23 (NIV translation)

      So, you see, those who do not practice the peaceful religion that Christ taught are not Christian , as is clearly demonstrated by the above passages. By his own admission, Christ knows that there will be people in power in the church who will not truly follow his teachings, and he warns other Christians to be on the watch out for those people. This is why I, as a true believer in the teachings of Jesus, refuse to accept these false prophets as Christians. This is why I believe the current day church in general is as corrupt as the Pharisees of Jesus' day. This is why I think that the scriptures preceding that passage needs to be read by more "Christians" so that they can see their own hypocrisy and correct it:

      12"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

      13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

      - The teachings of Jesus as recorded by Matthew 7:12-14 (NIV translation)

      This is a key commandment by Christ. He says that we are to treat others as we would wish to be treated, and to do otherwise is to not be admitted into heaven. Combine this with my earlier scripture references, and you can clearly see that Christ was against the corruption you have seen, and what you call "Christianity" is not the religion Christianity, but is instead the twisted erroneous traditions of false prophets. So again, I say that it is clear that the Religion of Christianity is a peaceful religion.

      Many (as was predicted by Christ) have twisted Christianity into their own version which encourages violence, but in doing so, they have walked away from the "narrow path" of Christ, and therefore are not Christian. Please don't judge Christianity based on people who are not truly practicing their faith.

      Again, I judge each religion solely on its religious texts - an objective view, as opposed to judging the religion's peacefulness based on its practitioners. Anything else is less than objective.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    149. Re:So what? by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Sorry, took that one the wrong way, as was bound to happen sometime when communicating online. :-)

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    150. Re:So what? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      You can cherry pick quotes all day long and they could do the same, and everyone will insist they are right. But I can see problems even with the quotes you chose: "Only he who does the will of my father..." everyone believes they're doing his will when they act. They probably have a verse to back up their actions for their hate, genocide, etc, so as far as they're concerned its his will and they're carrying it out.

      Interpretation is an incredible thing. You can interpret it one way, they're going to interpret it another way, and I'm going to base my judgment on what I see. What I've seen is something full of violence and hypocrisy for centuries and no one really doing anything about it.

    151. Re:So what? by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Then, at this point, I think the only thing left is to agree to disagree. Thank you for your honest discourse. It has been refreshing to revisit the core of my beliefs.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    152. Re:So what? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I'm in no way condoning the abortion clinic bombings and shootings, but they're a world apart from what we're seeing in the middle east. The goal of the anti-abortion killer is to attack a very specific target with the goal of preventing them from doing something that the killer thinks is morally worse than the attack. The goal of a suicide bomber is to spread terror throughout an entire society.

      I'm sure in the head of a suicide bomber the goal is the same; to kill people who are disrespecting their god. Honestly, that's the worst rationalization I've heard here in quite a while. After all, the suicide bombers aren't bombing the other terrorists are they? And for the most part they seem to largely stay away from other muslims.

      Now, both killers effect the same result: dead people. However, you can't pretend that a targeted attack against someone perceived as evil by the attacker is equivalent to an indiscriminate assault against innocents, including children.

      As I said, I'm sure in the minds of the suicide bombers they aren't targetting innocent people either. Please, stop trying to justify murder when a christian does it. Stop pretending the abortion clinic bombing is somehow "less evil." People like you sicken me.

  4. And we reproduced the lines here? by Cheeko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought writing the lines in text was a reproduction just as much as the audio? Yet /. just posted them?

    Or maybe I'm just confused and there is a difference between writing them and the audio copy.

    1. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by eln · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why would reproducing a work that has long since been in the public domain be a problem? If it is, hundreds of publishers are in deep shit.

      From what the article says, it seems some Muslims got offended at their holy scriptures being put to music. So, Sony is bowing to a few fundamentalist Muslims to keep from generating any bad press about how they offend Islam or whatever.

      Personally, I think if they're going to start bowing down to any fringe group that complains on the Internet, they're going to have a hard time releasing any games ever again.

      People are so scared of "terrorists", and associate Islam so closely with those terrorists, that they are scared to death of offending anyone that calls themselves a Muslim. This just makes it much easier for the radical wing of Islam to not only be heard, but to wield influence out of proportion with their numbers. Of course, you could argue the same thing has been done with regard to the more radical wings of Christianity in other spheres as well.

    2. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "bowing down." It's more like "bending over" without Vaseline.

    3. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what the article says, it seems some Muslims got offended at their holy scriptures being put to music. So, Sony is bowing to a few fundamentalist Muslims to keep from generating any bad press about how they offend Islam or whatever.

      So, Sony is bowing to a few fundamentalist Muslims to keep from having offices blown up, employees stabbed to death, or executives heads cut off.

      Fixed that for you.

    4. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by Cheeko · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you misunderstood my point.

      I thought there was some muslim tenet that said you aren't supposed to reproduce the Qu'ran except in its true entirety.

      Similarly to how muslims aren't supposed to have depictions of muhammad, etc. Maybe I'm confusing that with some other rule.

      I know in Judaism that the Tora is only supposed to be copied by hand and in its exact form or something like that. Thought this was similar.

    5. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I agree with the recall, not because of the fact that it's Arabic, and from the Quran, but because I really don't think that a game like LBP should have music about death and infidels. Kind of puts a weird spin on the whole console "war" thing doesn't it?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by eln · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, if that's the case, the solution is simple: Re-release the song, but instead of just sampling those two parts, sing the entire book! I smell a platinum record!

    7. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by Jimmyisikura · · Score: 1

      They didn't pull it because of Queran copyright, they pulled it because of the lyrics. It is kinda like pulling virtually any rap song because as you are collecting bubbles in the background Big E is telling you the 10 crack commandments.

    8. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It shows that slashdot editors are braver than the studio.

    9. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      And why should Slashdot care what Muslim law says about reproducing the Qu'ran? Assuming you're not Jewish, do you refrain from eating pork because it's not Kosher? (If you are Jewish, do you go to confession with your local priest?)

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    10. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Game publishers are extremely risk averse. Sony is a big company that can afford to upset nobody. If someone gets offended by this line, it could backfire heavily. They may be in a position where apologising will offend some and not apologising will offend others.

      They're probably getting worried over nothing but I'm not the one betting my job on this.

    11. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by forceofyoda · · Score: 1

      From reading the forums where this was originally posted, I believe the problem is that the words are set to music. The words of the Koran are supposed to be read in silence. Since /. news is not set to music, it's ok.

    12. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by Shark · · Score: 1

      People are so scared of "terrorists", and associate Islam so closely with those terrorists, that they are scared to death of offending anyone that calls themselves a Muslim.

      You bring up a good point... Though my response is likely to be slightly off topic.

      Personally, I'm way more scared (and likely) of being the victim or some anti-terrorism measure than any kind of terrorist attack. Technically, pretty much everybody is now already a 'victim' of anti-terrorism.

      Tragic as the events were, 9/11, 7/7, Madrid didn't really affect my life in any significant way. The response to these things certainly did. It majorly affected how I travel. It radically changed what plays on my TV. It gave excuses my government to trample on liberties I once took for granted. It launched a war that contributed significantly in making the US pretty much bankrupt.

      Do us all a favor, beloved rulers: Next time a terrorist attack happens, please, just shrug it off and go on. Pretend to care like the PR firm says, read the little speech they wrote with a big fake tear at the corner of your eye... Then clean up, rebuild and move on. It'll cost less economically, morally, socially, and in just about every other respect.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    13. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      With that much violence, it could be a Rap Song!

      MC Mohamed, bitch!

      Yes I know rap spans a much larger spectrum then violence, but damn it, that as funny.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People are so scared of "terrorists", and associate Islam so closely with those terrorists, that they are scared to death of offending anyone that calls themselves a Muslim. This just makes it much easier for the radical wing of Islam to not only be heard, but to wield influence out of proportion with their numbers. Of course, you could argue the same thing has been done with regard to the more radical wings of Christianity in other spheres as well."
      Exactly. Anybody not willing to fight for their rights, doesn't deserve to have any.

      Screw you ***ers! Bring it on!

    15. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point is the fact it is set to music. Islam has some strict rules pertaining to music and art. For example, at least some Islamic traditions forbid pictures of living things, hence the 'arabesque' geometric artwork which is characteristic of islamic culture. Equally, edicts of some forms of Islam ban music in some contexts. It is not surprising therefore that setting passages from the Qu'ran to music could be considered offensive to some muslims (but not I think all of them). If Sony wishes to acknowledge this following complaint, well thats their choice.

    16. Re:And we reproduced the lines here? by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      For the same reason Sony doesn't HAVE to replace it. They are simply trying to be considerate to their customers.

      That being said I read the yahoo piece about this and they basically said that its offensive because it mixed scripture with music, which apparently is a no-no. Wasn't that they reproduced the text.

  5. Uh Oh. by flitty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Delayed PS3 game + angry gamers + Anon. internet forums + Western distrust of Islam = A lot of wasted /. Moderator points slaying trolls.

    --
    Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    1. Re:Uh Oh. by Hitto · · Score: 1

      or, Free publicity on the muslims' backs?

    2. Re:Uh Oh. by Moryath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Delayed PS3 game + angry gamers + Anon. internet forums + people who've actually studied Islam as opposed to trolls who don't know shit about it but flame about people "misunderstanding it" anyways = A lot of wasted /. Moderator points slaying trolls.

      There. Fixed that for you.

      Now go do some research on Islam. Here's a reading list for you:

      #1 - Koran.
      #2 - Hadith. Read both the Sunni and Shi'a preferred sets. For extra credit, check into other schools that have their own "authoritative" sets.
      #3 - Read up on the various fatwa that are considered "core" to belief, or to interpretation, by each of the major branches.

      NOW come back and tell me you've actually studied it, in depth, before declaring it a "religion of peace." Because it is most definitively not one, unless you believe that slavery, definitive tiers of haves and have-nots based on who's a member of the official state religion, definitive tiers of haves and have-nots based on which genitalia you were born with, and an admonition to subjugate, enslave, or otherwise wipe out anyone who doesn't believe in the state-sponsored religion can actually be a "religion of peace."

    3. Re:Uh Oh. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I forget who exactly said this, but one of their upper figures said they will not rest until Washington DC is under Sharia.

      --
    4. Re:Uh Oh. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As opposed to the Bible? Seriously, this line of argument is crap. "Evil is as Evil does", or something to that effect. The bible has its share of slay them all, sleeping with your daughters and subhuman people. It boils down to what people do with it. And the vast majority of the 2 billion+ Muslims ARE peaceful.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:Uh Oh. by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Buddha says I should forgive you, and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right.

    6. Re:Uh Oh. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Nice repost. That's not the point.

      Couple of things to keep in mind:
      1) Your post was off-topic. Nowhere in the original request was there a threat, a promise of a threat or anything that would indicate violence. This means that there was no reason to post the neo-con mantra that Islam is violent by nature.

      2) This leads to the question of why you posted that refrain. If snippets of violence are common in other mainstream religions, why are they noteworthy in the Q'ran? If you're interested in pointing out violence in general, your post is singularly narrow-minded. If you're interested in pointing out where Islamist jihadists get their justification from - duh. They've been telling you this for years.

      This means your post is either redundant, too narrow to be useful, off-topic - or it was done to stoke the holy fires of religious warfare. Nice going.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    7. Re:Uh Oh. by lgw · · Score: 1

      What is your point exactly? Islam today is no worse than the Catholic Church in the time of the Spanish Inquisition? And?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Uh Oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I have a list for you too:

      1# Get to know at least a couple of Muslim people.

      Then come back and tell me do they believe in "slavery, definitive tiers of haves and have-nots based on who's a member of the official state religion, definitive tiers of haves and have-nots based on which genitalia you were born with, and an admonition to subjugate, enslave, or otherwise wipe out anyone who doesn't believe in the state-sponsored religion".

    9. Re:Uh Oh. by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the Bible? Seriously, this line of argument is crap. "Evil is as Evil does", or something to that effect.

      Give me a single line of the New Testament saying to go and kill people. Fact is, you really can't find them unless you somehow take various parables totally out of context, on the other hand we have Muslim passages such as:

      (Sura 9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and fought jihad with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant."

      (Sura 9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

      Yes, there are passages in the Old Testament that advocate the slaying of people, such as

      "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

      "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

      But most Christian scholars believe that those were instructions only for Isreal during that time unlike followers of Islam who believe that today we should still have Jihad

      For example, take Romans, basically in there Paul is saying we don't have to follow the old testament anymore

      Romans 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    10. Re:Uh Oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of curiosity: did you read the bible (including old testament of course), and what is your conclusion?
      (I say that if Mozes where alive right now, he'd be charged with genocide for the mass killing of unarmed woman and boys, and the rape of virgin girls.)

    11. Re:Uh Oh. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      And if you follow theological discussions about the Q'ran, you'd know that it works the same exact way. The Q'ran is no worse than the Bible, and Islam is no worse than Christianism. What matters, however, is what PEOPLE do with those directives. Demonizing a religion won't help with dealing with people.

      That's the point.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:Uh Oh. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      See below. The point is that this is completely counterproductive, and doesn't help with the current problem. As a matter of fact, the only thing that this approach of "Religion of peace - *snicker*" helps with is stoking the fires of culture wars.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    13. Re:Uh Oh. by andy1307 · · Score: 1

      Why do I need to study about Islam? Frankly, I don't care what the koran preaches. I judge islam by the actions of the majority of it's followers.

    14. Re:Uh Oh. by InfinityWpi · · Score: 1

      NOW come back and tell me you've actually studied it, in depth, before declaring it a "religion of peace." Because it is most definitively not one, unless you believe that slavery, definitive tiers of haves and have-nots based on who's a member of the official state religion, definitive tiers of haves and have-nots based on which genitalia you were born with, and an admonition to subjugate, enslave, or otherwise wipe out anyone who doesn't believe in the state-sponsored religion can actually be a "religion of peace."/quote.

      Hey now, hey now -- we're discussing Islam here, not Christianity.

    15. Re:Uh Oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. Read the old testament:

      31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
      Moses tells the Israelites to kill every male and all the non-virgin females, but to keep the virgins for themselves.
      Is it wrong to commit adultery?
      31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    16. Re:Uh Oh. by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The Q'ran is no worse than the Bible, and Islam is no worse than Christianism. What matters, however, is what PEOPLE do with those directives. Demonizing a religion won't help with dealing with people.

      But the point I was trying to get across was yes, the Bible does advocate Israel wiping some nations off of the face of the earth, however, those instructions were to be fulfilled thousands of years ago, not today. And books of the Bible accepted to be canon in most Christian faiths (Romans and other books and letters by Paul) state that the Old Testament is null and void while still saying that the moral part of it (such as the 10 commandments) are still valid points to live by. You won't see a Christian sacrificing a lamb for passover (and many cases you won't see a Jewish person do that either anymore) because most Christians believe that the Old Testament is not needed to be followed anymore. Find me a piece of Islamic canon that states that Jihad and destroying the non-Muslims are over and I will believe that they are equal, but as far as I know, Christianity has many references to the Old Testament law being unnecessary several times, but not any Islamic scripture.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    17. Re:Uh Oh. by Moryath · · Score: 1

      1) No, it was on-topic. My response to 2) will explain why.

      2) I highly doubt that, were it a quote from Torah, or Bible, or Bhagavad Gita, or Talmud, or from any other religious source or chant or scripture, anyone would have been "offended" or even worried about giving offense. Then why for a Muslim scripture quote was it removed? The answer is fairly obvious, they are deathly afraid of even risking that some cleric somewhere will raise a fuss and cause rioting or worse over the "offense" to Islam that someone might have stuck a Koranic quotation inside a song that got into a video game. And THAT, my willfully ignorant and gullible friend, directly relates to the numerous previous examples in which the followers of the supposed "religion of peace" have done precisely as feared.

    18. Re:Uh Oh. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would add one more document to that list: the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Compare and contrast to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You might also want to read a bit on the history of the split. Note the description of UDHR by Muslim clerics as a "secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition".

    19. Re:Uh Oh. by Net_fiend · · Score: 1

      Man wish I had some mod points...You've put it into context. Now whether their followers follow their beliefs to the core is another matter. But what is taught in their holy book and what is taught to them is a whole deal in its own.

      I don't think many of them follow their holy book by the letter, however those that do should be watched. Granted I have yet to read it. I do plan to so I have an understanding of what is being read by those around me. But the excerpts I've seen doing google searches tells me an utterly different story than those following their religion proclaim that is for dead sure.

      --
      "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    20. Re:Uh Oh. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Being offended is not the same as lynching someone. Furthermore, the people being offended were polite in their requests. This brings us to your larger point: the fear that someone, somewhere, might do something stupid because of it. See the distinction? SOMEONE might be doing something stupid. Not "the followers of the supposed 'religion of peace'". Your argument is nothing but basic flamebait - in quite the literal sense, sadly. You might have knowledge of theological texts, but your knowledge of conflict resolution is exactly zero.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    21. Re:Uh Oh. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Find me one Muslim who's not homophobic. Find me one who doesn't believe that death penalty for apostasy from Islam is not the proper and fitting punishment as prescribed by the Holy Qu'ran. Find me one who doesn't believe that adultery is a punishable crime. And, find one who is all that, and is not considered an apostate by most other Muslims.

      Then we can get back to that "religion of peace" talk.

    22. Re:Uh Oh. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Personally? I'd like to introduce you to some of my friends. Sadly, you don't seem to know enough Muslims.
      2) Sheik Tantawi
      3) Adultery is not a punishable? I'd dare you to find one RELIGION where that's not punishable (and no, Hedonism doesn't count).
      4) I've got a few more: Sayyid al-Qimni, Abd-al-Karim, Ridwan al-Sayyid.... a quick google brings up plenty of moderate Muslim scholars who aren't considered apostate by most other Muslims. They are, of course, apostates by the standard of radical Fundamentalists, but that's not what we're talking about, are we? Unless, of course, you're arguing that the majority of Muslims are radical Fundamentalists. In which case, I can't help you.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    23. Re:Uh Oh. by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Interesting points from your source:

      (a) In the event of the use of force and in case of armed conflict, it is not permissible to kill non-belligerents such as old men, women and children. The wounded and the sick shall have the right to medical treatment; and prisoners of war shall have the right to be fed, sheltered and clothed. It is prohibited to mutilate dead bodies. It is a duty to exchange prisoners of war and to arrange visits or reunions of the families separated by the circumstances of war. (b) It is prohibited to fell trees, to damage crops or livestock, and to destroy the enemy's civilian buildings and installations by shelling, blasting or any other means.

      Taking hostages under any form or for any purpose is expressly forbidden.

      Muslims fighting jihad today regularly attack crops and livestock, civilian buildings (and civilian conveyances like buses), the elderly/infirm,children, houses, and keep prisoners of war without medical attention and in unfed, unsheltered, horrid locations while torturing them until they die.

      Every human being is entitled to inviolability and the protection of his good name and honour during his life and after his death. The state and society shall protect his remains and burial place.

      Muslims fighting jihad today do not follow this.

      (a) The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of its formation. Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right. (b) Society and the State shall remove all obstacles to marriage and shall facilitate marital procedure. They shall ensure family protection and welfare.

      Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men, but Muslim men are allowed (even encouraged) to marry non-Muslim women. In all but three Islamic states, intermarriage between "Muslims of Palestinian descent" and other Muslims is not permitted "for fear of diluting the people of Palestine" (quoting the Saudi law on the matter). So much for that one.

      (a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage. (b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.

      No Muslim nation follows this today. It is especially bad for women in Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia which most harshly enforce Shari'a laws regarding women not being allowed to leave the house without male familial escort.

      Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.

      You'll note they say nothing of exercising "forms of compulsion" to force people to convert to Islam.

      Final point: look at all the "as long as it doesn't go against Shari'a listings in there. There's a reason for this: the document actually looks HALF usable until you actually have a good understanding of Shari'a, its provisions, its punishments, and the fact that it pretty much makes meaningless every sentence that ends "in accordance with Shari'a" or some similar phrasing.

    24. Re:Uh Oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seconded.

    25. Re:Uh Oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, I'd rather just agree that they're a bunch of religious nutjobs. All that reading would seriously eat into my "Little Big Planet" game time.

    26. Re:Uh Oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game is being recalled. The release date was October 24, just next week! Stock has been sent to retailers all over the world in time for the release date. Now, the whole process of manufacturing and shipping stock has to start all again. This is gonna cost Sony a tidy sum.

    27. Re:Uh Oh. by __aaojfq2958 · · Score: 1

      :)
      I thought you actually read what you preached!

      I stand corrected. You obviously let a few interpretations cloud your own of the aforementioned texts.

      What if I had judged the bible by the acts of a few bible thumping KKK's? Instead of actually READING it. Please go back and read the references you so rightfully recommended to others?

    28. Re:Uh Oh. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men, but Muslim men are allowed (even encouraged) to marry non-Muslim women.

      Well, yes, let's have a look at what it says, once again: Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right. Now, spot the missing word...

    29. Re:Uh Oh. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Give me a single line of the New Testament saying to go and kill people.

      If I remember aright, Jesus instructed his followers, who included at least two terrorists, to go and buy swords. Apart from killing people, what use is there for such things?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    30. Re:Uh Oh. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sheik Tantawi

      Oh, right. Let me quote something:

      "To Shaykh Tantawi, a Muslim who renounced his faith or turned apostate should be left alone as long as he does not pose a threat or belittle Islam. If the Muslims were forced to take action against the apostate, he said it should NOT be because he or she had given up the faith but because he or she had turned out to be an enemy or a threat to Islam."

      Very liberal-minded, indeed: he only wants to execute those dissenters who are vocal about their dissent.

      Adultery is not a punishable? I'd dare you to find one RELIGION where that's not punishable (and no, Hedonism doesn't count).

      Let me clarify here: I meant criminal, and punishable by corporal punishment (up to death), not by some ethereal Hell in the afterlife. I can live with the latter.

      Sayyid al-Qimni ... aren't considered apostate by most other Muslims.

      "When Mahmoud asked al-Qimni whether he faced any physical or verbal attack by the radical Islamists, he replied, 'Ideologically and physically...'". A pretty long list of incidents follows. I have also found quite a few notes to the effect that the guy is borderline apostate, and the only reason he's not yet officially one is because he chooses his words very carefully.

    31. Re:Uh Oh. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The "difference" is as follows:

      Most Christians don't believe it's okay to kill other people based on religion. Thus Christianity must be peaceful.
      Some Muslims believe it's okay to kill other people based on religion. Thus Islam must be blodthirsty.

      It's all a matter of perspective. You can easily use the same logic to "prove" that Windows is mostly stable while Linux tends to crash a lot.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    32. Re:Uh Oh. by Mothinator · · Score: 1

      unless you believe that slavery, definitive tiers of haves and have-nots based on who's a member of the official state religion, definitive tiers of haves and have-nots based on which genitalia you were born with, and an admonition to subjugate, enslave, or otherwise wipe out anyone who doesn't believe in the state-sponsored religion can actually be a "religion of peace."

      So I guess by this standard no western religion is a "religion of peace"

    33. Re:Uh Oh. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Very liberal-minded, indeed: he only wants to execute those dissenters who are vocal about their dissent.

      Learn to read. Vocal dissent != enemy or threat to Islam. Unless you have some supporting evidence that that's what was meant.

      Let me clarify here: I meant criminal, and punishable by corporal punishment (up to death), not by some ethereal Hell in the afterlife. I can live with the latter.

      I didn't know that moderate Islam required that. Got some support for that notion? Malaysia doesn't execute adulterers, Morocco doesn't, Turkey doesn't.

      As for your quote about al-Qimni, you're again conflating "radical Islamists" and "most Muslims". Look. I'm all for an open debate. However, you're defining most Muslims to be radical Islamists, which renders the entire discussion pointless. You keep redefining what you're asking for, all with the goal to get answers that match your current bias. That's not a discussion, that's an echo chamber.

      Bleah. It's people like you who make me think that the "Culture War" is actually not far away. Not because of Radical Islamists, but because the other side is just as irrational in its assessment of the actual threat.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    34. Re:Uh Oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you mask all the proper nouns, you'll find you're talking about almost any world religion at one point in time or another. The problem is not that a particular religion is of peace or not, but rather the dispositions of the current practitioners and the general human disposition of "us vs. them".

      The US, a land of freedom and equality (as long as you're not, god forbid, gay of course), actively supports despotic governments that actively endorse class warfare and slavery. Its all about the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules.

      -sorry to pop your bubble of (probably christian) idealism

    35. Re:Uh Oh. by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Who said I follow a "western" religion?

      Or any religion at all, for that matter?

      Really, I'm very much of the "they've all got it wrong, just some wronger than others" school.

    36. Re:Uh Oh. by flyonthewall · · Score: 1

      Does not matter what the religion is. In the end; they are all about controlling the behavior of the many for the select few pretending to have a direct line upstairs (or downstairs).

      They may pretend to be good and righteous at hart, but are the real root of fear, discrimination and envy. In fact; very few teach respect and tolerance for your neighbour. Forgiveness perhaps, but forgiveness in the context that the "rules" have been transgressed.

      Not saying that society does not need rules; but rules like those are no longer needed.

      --
      "The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
    37. Re:Uh Oh. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Learn to read. Vocal dissent != enemy or threat to Islam. Unless you have some supporting evidence that that's what was meant.

      Which part of "belittle Islam" was not clear to you?

    38. Re:Uh Oh. by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      >>As opposed to the Bible?

      No, in addition to it. I'm an atheist and I can proclaim both religions to be awful if I want to.

      Let's please not turn this into something like the American two-party system where instead of the opposite of X being !X, the opposite becomes Y or whatever authority would like you to believe.

      The opposite of muslim is !muslim (not muslim). The opposite of peaceful is not islam, it is !peaceful. I know not everyone on /. is old enough to have taken at least 1000-level logic, but sheesh.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    39. Re:Uh Oh. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      NOW come back and tell me you've actually studied it, in depth, before declaring it a "religion of peace."

      I don't recall anybody in this thread declaring that Islam is a "religion of peace", so I'm not sure who your comment is directed at.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    40. Re:Uh Oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the Bible?

      Opposed? Nah. Let fundie xtians have as much power as fundie mooslims, they will do pretty much the same.

    41. Re:Uh Oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist Alert!!! moryath IS A RACIST!!!

    42. Re:Uh Oh. by FooGoo · · Score: 1
      I would also add Qutb's In the Shade of the Qurâ(TM)an to that list to get a handle on what is motivating the fundamentalist muslims. Because as with most religious texts it's not the original texts it's the commentaries that cause the problems.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi_Zilal_al-Qur'an

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    43. Re:Uh Oh. by moortak · · Score: 1

      Jihad does not necessarily mean war or killing.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    44. Re:Uh Oh. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      I suggest you acutally try reading the documents you are talking about rather than continuing to make a fool of yourself.

      Just as with any religion, the vast majority of followers are hippocrates or not "true believers". If you're going to enter an argument regarding the official policies of a religion, you should actually know what those are.

      "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem"

      "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."

      "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

      That is the "official policy" of Islam. That your buddies do not follow it does not change that fact, just as a cop not giving you a ticket does not change the speed limit. The law is the law and for Islam it does not change. Islam requires blind faith in the text and allows essentially zero room for interpretation.

      "In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force. The other religious groups (Christianity and Judaism) did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. (Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimmah: Ail Introduction to History, Islamic historian, 1377 AD)

      Perhaps the "moderate muslims" you refer to don't beat their wives either, but that doesn't change the fact the it is specifically ok'ed by the Qur'an. These are simple facts. They are not interpretations of metaphorical stories. Islam is quite specific.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    45. Re:Uh Oh. by lgw · · Score: 1

      We *need* to be at war with the culture of terrorism. A vital step in that process is to somehow get the recognized leaders of a major religion to stop endorsing that culture. Shaming them into that seems fine with me, and preferable to solving the problem the way Rome solved the problem of Carthage.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  6. Maybe the specific recording isn't. by ciroknight · · Score: 1

    Toumani Diabate's "Symmetrical Orchestra" sounds rather recent to me. But I could be wrong, feel free to find out.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:Maybe the specific recording isn't. by nsayer · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

      Hear that? It's the sound of the joke flying just over your head.

  7. What are they afraidn of? by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not like some militant Islamic sect would burn down the distributor's house... oh, wait.

    1. Re:What are they afraidn of? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, this is not a troll post.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:What are they afraidn of? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      Careful, Joe, Muslims got mod points!

    3. Re:What are they afraidn of? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I don't think the problem is Muslims, I think the problem is "Youths". Youths are always causing problems, we should just eliminate these Youths.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:What are they afraidn of? by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      Why are they getting so worked up about making a picture of Muhammad ? Michelangelo went one step further and painted Allah !

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png

      --
      Squirrel!
    5. Re:What are they afraidn of? by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      I don't think the problem is Muslims, I think the problem is "Youths". Youths are always causing problems, we should just eliminate these Youths.

      No, no, no, people are the problem! All we need to do is eliminate all the people, and we get rid of all the problems. This is something system administrators have known for years, it's the users that are the problem!

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    6. Re:What are they afraidn of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will be Phase 2.

  8. Just want to clarify by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So I can publish games that include demons, prostitutes, foul language, and abhorrent levels of bloodshed and violence--just as long as it doesn't piss off a Muslim somewhere?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not a troll, has a legit point. Where's the outrage for the mod abuse?

    2. Re:Just want to clarify by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      Out of mod points but well said.

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    3. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can publish stuff that pisses off Muslims if you like. You don't get to choose what pisses people off though.

      Sony is simply choosing not to offend Muslims - businesses make similar decisions all over the world for a variety of reasons.

      If LBP had been pulled in Asia because it contained a song that talked about Taiwan as an independent nation, I'm guessing the amount of pissing and moaining on Slashdot would be minimal. But through Muslim into the mix and suddenly everyone is claiming their personal freedom has been abused.

    4. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just listen to what Pat Condell has to say and you'll figure it out:

      http://patcondell.net/

    5. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, personally I'm heavily offended about this double standard!

      I've had enough depiction of my religious icons out of context and then misrepresented by media and furthering misunderstanding of our ideals!! So we should any more Hellboy... a good demon, indeed! This is a smear to all of us demon-worshippers!

    6. Re:Just want to clarify by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Oh, you can still publish, you just do so at your own risk. And "risk" in this case means not monetary loss, but a fatwa of death against you, and a bomb in your car. There's enough precedent

    7. Re:Just want to clarify by randyest · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's right. Next question.

      --
      everything in moderation
    8. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is bound to offend someone out there. Only some people will react violently to offense, however.

      People against violent video games generally have not been known to make death threats against the people making video games. That's the difference.

      Now, if the game featured an abortion clinic or whale hunting, things might be different :)

    9. Re:Just want to clarify by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but don't appear to advocate abortion, or you'll piss of a Christian somewhere and get yourself shot.

    10. Re:Just want to clarify by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      How dare you dis the hookers!

    11. Re:Just want to clarify by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Doh, who is that fatwa? Can I hire her for a job?

    12. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang hard to find a thread here that's actually about islam Vs. LittleBigPlanet and not just islam/Christianity bashing...

      That said, this incident has helped me in one way. I was wondering what to make for my first LBP user created level, and now I'm thinking that I should try to find as many ways as I can to subtly insult the islamic knee-jerk-****tard demographic from within the game. Are we able to create our own stickers and objects, or will I just have to find some creative way to illustrate a bomb-turbaned mohammad being squished by Monty Python's foot of God?

    13. Re:Just want to clarify by db10 · · Score: 1

      You mean phatwa? She's totally bootilicious!

    14. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That is because the protesting/bombing Muslims are a blight upon society and the sooner society figures out that they don't want to be a part of the modern world the better. There should be exactly zero tolerance for their behavior.

    15. Re:Just want to clarify by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The difference is that would never happen. China doesn't hold worldwide protests when you make fun of them. I can say anything I want about Germans, Hindus, Americans, Communists, Albinos, the disabled, etc etc and NEVER have a problem.

      I print one cartoon that offends Muslims and I'll be living in safe houses for the rest of my life like Salmon Rushdie.

      That's the difference.

    16. Re:Just want to clarify by Eberlin · · Score: 1

      Wait, did Jack Thompson convert or something?

    17. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would never happen? It has happened. If you know someone who works for any of the large software companies, ask them if they've heard of any localization snafus. Localization issues can be require immediate withdrawal of a product - offending people in a culture (or worse, a government) is a great way to damage your reputation. You and many others are immediately drawing comparison between this and the Danish cartoon fiasco - a fair comparison in some ways - but you're acting as if this kind of thing doesn't happen with other cultures for other reasons. That is definitely unfair.

      The fact of the matter is that this issue is easy to address and Sony would be stupid not to address it. It's just business.

    18. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you can't do any of the above. Why? Because EVERYTHING pisses off fundamentalist muslims.

    19. Re:Just want to clarify by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The difference is, this isn't some instruction manual that was incorrectly translated into something offensive, this is not in any sense of the word a localization issue.

      Unless of course you consider "earth" a local and "any mention whatsoever" a snafu.

      Sony, as mentioned has no trouble offending Christians among others, do you think this is about anything but the massive irrational hissy fit that certain religious activists could, would, and have a history of, throwing?

    20. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you know, the 'prophet' of Islam was a mass murderer, a multiple rapist, a bigamist with 15 'wives', and a paedophile, who 'married' a nine year old girl when he was fifty four. And muslims call him 'the perfect man'.

      www.prophetofdoom.net

      âoeThe five oldest and most trusted Islamic sources don't portray Muhammad as a great and godly man. They reveal that he was a thief, liar, assassin, mass murderer, terrorist, warmonger, and an unrestrained sexual pervert engaged in pedophilia, incest, and rape. He authorized deception, assassinations, torture, slavery, and genocide. He was a pirate, not a prophet.â

    21. Re:Just want to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've latched on your own narrow version of localization and are furiously arguing against that interpretation. The simple fact is this: if you release a product into a market that will offend part of that market due to cultural insensitity, then you potentially have a problem. It's then up to you to work out if you're willing to recall the product and address the issue or not.

      With LBP, the game hasn't been released yet and there issue is with a soundtrack. Easy to fix. With Resistance, the offensive material is part of the level design for the game, and the complaints were made after the game was released. Recalling the game and addressing the issue in this case would basically have put the game back into production and cost millions in recalls.

      Yes, it's true that members of the Church of England empirically appear to be less likely to object violently than Muslims (at least in the last decade) and that is obviously going to influence the decision. But the heart of this problem is a simple globalization/localization issue. If you act otherwise, you're just adding to the hate.

  9. I don't get it by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is that supposed to be offensive to someone? I dare say anyone with the background to understand the words and recognize them as a quote from an old religious tome would be unlikely to get too worked up.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:I don't get it by retchdog · · Score: 1

      As is often the problem with these matters, someone with that background gets it in their head to tell other people.

      Not that it matters anyway; people will hear whatever they want to.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:I don't get it by FatalTourist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More people will be offended by the delay of the game! In fact, when I heard the news I let loose a stream of offensive words... causing even more offense. Oh sweet irony.

      --


      Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
    3. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending. We hope you would remove that track from the game immediately via an online patch, and make sure that all future shipments of the game disk do not contain it."

      I guess I kind of understand. I mean, lots of people here would oppose installing proprietary drivers on their Linux system for fear of tainting the Holy Kernel Code of the Prophet Linus.

    4. Re:I don't get it by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      but those people don't kill people, and will still buy the game.
      Muslims believe in killing people who disobey there religious texts.

      If you are Muslim and not killing people, you are not practicing your religion properly.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:I don't get it by pluther · · Score: 1

      Heh, I hadn't heard of that one!

      I love all the reactions from the people posting (usually the most humorous part of freerepublic!)

      Certainly, a religious message has no place in stores in America!

      (For those wondering, it is, obviously, not true: http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/dolltalk.asp)

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    6. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The background music had some words in arabic in it. That language is offensive to muslims, and so should be banned in all situations. Problem solved!

    7. Re:I don't get it by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Some people don't like their religious works used in nonreligious contexts. Since religion tends to be a sensitive topic it might be a good idea to appease them (especially in this case, as the lyrics didn't even have any relevance to the game) as people you accidentally piss off might be people who would've otherwise bought the game.

      Pissing off people on purpose might work but you just should avoid accidentally pissing them off. That just hurts your sales and you don't even get anything out of it.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:I don't get it by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      More people will be offended by the delay of the game!

      Oh, $DEITY! A video game has been delayed! Our trust in the video game industry to always deliver quality games on time has been violated! Stop the presses, this is a tragedy without precedent!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    9. Re:I don't get it by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      If you are Muslim and not killing people, you are not practicing your religion properly.

      Same applies to Christians. Nothing says "I love JHWH" more than a nailbomb in a downtown restaurant.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    10. Re:I don't get it by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Same applies to Christians. Nothing says "I love JHWH" more than a nailbomb in a downtown restaurant.

      Has this happened recently?

      Nothing says "I love Dawkins" more than cholera in the water supply. Oh, wait, that hasn't happened either.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    11. Re:I don't get it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. This topic is about a Muslim influence on a game.
      Pointing out that Muslims are in fact bound by their book to kill is not defending some other religion, or trying to show a better religion, it's simple pointing out written facts.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:I don't get it by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Not a single freeper even suggesting that it might be bullshit (let alone suggesting that even if it's true, it's not "hate speech"). Many leaps of logic to connect it to Obama (maybe a joke, maybe not, it's hard to tell).

      Sometimes I think that the world is improving; freep helps me disabuse myself of that notion, therefore it is good in its own way. Reminds me: it's time to reread Shockwave Rider.

      --
      Space is a tough place, where wimps eat flaming plasma death.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    13. Re:I don't get it by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      There haven't been many killing sprees around the mosques in my area, either. I might want to go over and tell them they're doing it wrong. Or maybe they're not actually doing it wrong and the killing guys are actually crazy extremists and about as representative of their own faith as the Westboro Baptist Church is of Christianity.

      Nah, must be the guys in the mosques doing it wrong.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    14. Re:I don't get it by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Pointing out that Muslims are in fact bound by their book to kill is not defending some other religion, or trying to show a better religion, it's simple pointing out written facts.

      And we're supposed to kill gay people, not allow women to work and stone disobedient sons to death. Also, we're not allowed to eat shrimps. What, except for assuming that all members of that religion are exactly like its most extremistic members, is your point?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    15. Re:I don't get it by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      The difference being that Islamic suicide bombings have been a weekly occurrence on the news for quite some time. You can chalk it up to a matter of degree, but when the degree involves several orders of magnitude you're just deluding yourself.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    16. Re:I don't get it by Iftekhar25 · · Score: 1

      That's actually an excellent point, and very insightful, but I don't have mod points. Most of the moderate Muslim world that looks upon these incidents shaking their heads in shame know this.

      Most of the people rioting against the Danish cartoons, or trying to kill Mr. Rushdie, hadn't ever even read the book or seen the cartoons. In fact, most of them probably had never read a book in English, or even read the Qur'an for that matter. If the had, they read it in Arabic, a language they simply don't understand.

      Lack of education in the Muslim third world is endemic, and these kinds of riots and chest-thumping are essentially political posturing. They all were. The teddy prophet was (Sudan trying to get into the favor of hardline elements in money-rich Saudi Arabia), the Irani fatwa was (Iran raging against the Western machine), the Danish cartoons were (Pakistan, where rioting lead to deaths was undergoing severe political repression under their dictator Pervez Musharraf, and the opposition parties organized the riots).

    17. Re:I don't get it by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Where? Israel? The conflict there is not of a religious but a territorial nature; the fact that one of the sides is predominantly Jewish doesn't change the fact that the bombings happen because two factions claim the same area. And it's not like the Israelis were much less violent. Iraq? The country is currently being occupied by the USA and I'd think that would affect how many IEDs you see there.

      Fact is that most of the bombings we keep hearing about have more to do with regional conflicts than with religious ones. You can, of course, demonize the enemy to justify whatever you do in that country you're currently occupying. It's much more comforting to shoot inherently violent evil Muslims instead of people fighting against what they perceive as brutal oppressors.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  10. Qur'an verses in media by qbzzt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see the big deal here, since Muslims are supposed to want to distribute the Qur'an. But I can see how people would be extra paranoid about offending Muslims, since some of them take offense violently.

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
    1. Re:Qur'an verses in media by Icarus1919 · · Score: 0

      Lots of non-muslims, too, take offense violently. It's more a symptom of the human condition.

    2. Re:Qur'an verses in media by Kagura · · Score: 1

      since some of them take offense violently

      Probably some of anyone will take offense violently when you are dealing with a diverse group of billions or hundreds of millions of members.

    3. Re:Qur'an verses in media by droopycom · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, you might "see" whats the deal is about.

      The muslim gamer said them an email stating:

      "We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending. We hope you would remove that track from the game immediately via an online patch, and make sure that all future shipments of the game disk do not contain it."

    4. Re:Qur'an verses in media by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Except Muslims are tasked with doing so.

      You know those 'crazy' cleric shouting for the death of all infidels? They are being what the Muslim texts say Muslims to be. They are practicing their religion properly.

      Personal, I prefer a Cleric with the Mace of Cuthbert, but that's just me~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Qur'an verses in media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the religion forbids derivative works, for example putting Qur'an quotes in a song.

      Sony changed this ou

    6. Re:Qur'an verses in media by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Mixing with music is the problem. Music is illegal under the Taliban -- fundamentalists consider it sinful. Put the holy in a sinful medium and it's a grave insult.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  11. To quote Bill Hicks by einer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah? And? So? What?

    1. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by einer · · Score: 5, Informative

      From: http://kotaku.com/5065106/nsiders-letter-to-sony-and-media-molecule-re-quran-references

      "We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending. We hope you would remove that track from the game immediately via an online update, and make sure that all future shipments of the game disk do not contain it."

      Personally, I consider censoring art "deeply offending." Sony, you're losing a customer if you cave to the demands of any religious group. Hey Muslims, don't buy the game.

    2. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by LordKaT · · Score: 1

      The best part about quoting Bill Hicks is that you have a 50/50 shot of being modded either Funny or Insightful.

      Hicks truly was a karma whore.

    3. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by einer · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm sure Sony would have no objection to selling a Bob Dylan album with the lyrics:

      Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
      Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
      God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
      God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
      The next time you see me comin' you better run"
      Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
      God says, "Out on Highway 61."

    4. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      ...and genius.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    5. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Personally, I consider censoring art 'deeply offending.'"

      Pieces of music made primarily for business are primarily business. Not art.

      Losing one customer (you) to win many more (Muslims) is also business.

      Though ethically I think this would be the right thing to do anyway, since apart from the Western world people still have respect for holy things in their lives. And most of them show their respect like they should (with respect to others as well).

    6. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the execs don't have to worry about you cutting their heads off, so they'll just keep listening to the thin-skinned Mohammedeans. Sucks to be you.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by sdnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending.

      Then I'd say that Muslims should definitely refrain from doing this. However, we aren't all Muslims - why would the rest of us be expected to follow their beliefs?

    8. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by 2short · · Score: 1



      You're threatening to not buy the game if they cave into people who are threatening to not buy the game.

      Not to suggest anyones position is more or less reasonable, but that's pretty funny.

    9. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Though ethically I think this would be the right thing to do anyway, since apart from the Western world people still have respect for holy things in their lives. And most of them show their respect like they should (with respect to others as well).

      Hey, I'm from the West, and I have plenty of respect for holy things! I just haven't seen anything "holy" yet.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    10. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      However, we aren't all Muslims - why would the rest of us be expected to follow their beliefs?

      Because they find you not doing so deeply offending, as well.

    11. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure sony is heartbroken to lose a customer who will refuse to buy a game for so trivial a reason.

      that just means one less comic book store guy emailing them demands to change their product and telling them how bad a job they did after release.

    12. Re:To quote Bill Hicks by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Because they find you not doing so deeply offending, as well.

      And I find their offense, and attempt to censor a game, deeply offending.

      The world isn't set up to make sure no one's ever offended. If Muslims can't handle that, there are plenty of countries they could move to that don't sell video games much at all.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  12. Logical followup by Agent.Nihilist · · Score: 3, Funny

    I support the immediate recall of all games containing biblical samplings and verse references.
    It is well known that religious references are debase and cause conflict, therefore have no place in today's games /satire

  13. I'm sick of this by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm really sick of these crazy islamonazis deciding what we can or can not read.

    It's time for us to turn the tables on them and tell them what they can or can not listen to.

    Andy Out!

    1. Re:I'm sick of this by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      As I said below, I would agree in that some of these people need to grow some skin and learn to deal with shit.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  14. The original complaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason for the complaint is that apparently having the words of the qur'an set to music is highly offensive to muslims.

    1. Re:The original complaint by argent · · Score: 1

      Except for the ones who wrote and performed the music?

    2. Re:The original complaint by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      The reason for the complaint is that apparently having the words of the qur'an set to music is highly offensive to muslims.

      Isn't the Koran usually recited in chant?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:The original complaint by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what? Having a game censored because of pandering to some primitive superstition is highly offensive to me.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:The original complaint by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Too bad. Grow some fucking skin, it's a big wide world out there.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:The original complaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually a Little Big Planet.

    6. Re:The original complaint by sunking2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So go strap a bomb to yourself and do something about it. What, not that passionate about it? Can't imagine why Sony doesn't take offending you seriously.

  15. Different Sony, right? by igorthefiend · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not the same Sony who didn't see anything wrong with Manchester Cathedral being used in Resistance, despite the church itself complaining? Not that I think either should be grounds for a game to be pulled, but there is the faint stench of double standards...

    1. Re:Different Sony, right? by SupremoMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's different. Christians don't blow stuff up... anymore... I think...

    2. Re:Different Sony, right? by abigor · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's all about calculated risk - piss off some English Catholics, you get some peeved letters in the local paper. Piss off Muslims, you get explosions, beheadings, and people living out their lives in hiding.

    3. Re:Different Sony, right? by eln · · Score: 1

      It's different. Christians don't blow stuff up... anymore... I think...

      Eric Rudolph?

      Okay, so he doesn't blow stuff up anymore because he's in prison, but it was not that long ago that he did.

    4. Re:Different Sony, right? by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 1

      Yeah, even the Irish have toned that kind of thing way down. Maybe that's the problem, most any outside observer looking at the basis for the religions' beliefs can see they are all strikingly similar, with the exception that the others have left the violence behind as they grew up.

      --
      Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    5. Re:Different Sony, right? by Jaysyn · · Score: 0, Troll
      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:Different Sony, right? by orclevegam · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nah, Christians have always been more of the sticking swords in people, and nailing them to crosses kind. Sometimes they'd hang people, or tie them to a tree and then set it on fire. For the most part they don't do any of that anymore, although some of the dumber sects still light stuff on fire from time to time. Christians are mostly a danger to themselves and their immediate family, very rarely to someone they don't know.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    7. Re:Different Sony, right? by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Nah, Christians have always been more of the sticking swords in people, and nailing them to crosses kind. Sometimes they'd hang people, or tie them to a tree and then set it on fire. For the most part they don't do any of that anymore, although some of the dumber sects still light stuff on fire from time to time. Christians are mostly a danger to themselves and their immediate family, very rarely to someone they don't know.

      Troll? Really? Exactly what in there wasn't factual or accurate? It's perfectly true that Christians are mostly a danger to themselves and their immediate family, they very rarely do anything that hurts anyone they don't know. Muslims on the other hand are far more likely to kill either random people, or people they've never actually met before. As for the rest of the comment, that's all historical and well documented (much of it even in the Bible, ignoring for the moment whether that qualifies as "historical" or not), so you can't argue with that.

      Is it possible for a simple statement of facts to be a troll?

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    8. Re:Different Sony, right? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      So by your standards Beatles fans should be eyed up as potential murderers because of what Chuck Manson and his little "family" did?

      Regardless if it's a religion or a video game or a novel there is always going to be some people who are going to latch onto something and turn it into an excuse for being a rotten little asshole to the rest of us.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    9. Re:Different Sony, right? by eln · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. There are people willing to commit violence on the fringes of every religion. You can no more condemn Muslims for the actions of Al Qaeda as you can condemn Christians for the actions of Eric Rudolph and those like him.

    10. Re:Different Sony, right? by meist3r · · Score: 1

      It's not exactly like the members of the Anglican church filled the streets, burned effigies of the Resistance devs and shouted "Death to Japan" when that happened. Remember the Mohammed caricatures? Islam has a very different "style" of dealing with such things. It's really a shame that the entire world has come to live in fear of a bunch of fundamentalists who can only be described as the rednecks of the middle east. I find it really peculiar that the islamic world has such a great sense of humor sometimes and when it comes to their illusory beliefs they go all bombs and burka on our ass. It's so ridiculous.

    11. Re:Different Sony, right? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In fact, it's becoming increasingly hard to even get anathemized properly. I recall one rabidly antitheist guy setting an experiment, doing things deliberately offensive to Christians and spreading information about them in hope of the Church (Eastern Orthodox in that case) pronouncing an anathema on him - he sought it as something to be proud of. Despite all his attempts, he did not succeed - and, myself an atheist, I still can't help thinking that the Church authorities have acted smart in that case, and just let him make a fool of himself.

    12. Re:Different Sony, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because they aren't scared of violent reprisals from the Cathedral's parishioners.

    13. Re:Different Sony, right? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      At least in the Catholic Church public excommunication(*) is generally has to serve a constructive purpose and not just punish.

      For example, with Fidel Castro it was a political statement to the world against communism and with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre it was a signal to his followers that they should not follow him anymore as he was acting and teaching well outside the Church (**).

      Excommunicating some "rabid antitheist" wouldn't serve any such purpose. Besides bishops are busy people and often have better things to do. If you really want to get excommunicated, the best way is to become a bishop and start a schism.

      (*) By public excommunication I mean by public declaration as opposed to some acts that incur an automatic excommunication (e.g. a priest violating the seal (i.e. secrecy) of confession).

      (**)Technically this was also an automatic excommunication for ordaining bishops without papal mandate, but it was also a very publicly announced excommunication.

    14. Re:Different Sony, right? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Nah, Christians have always been more of the sticking swords in people, and nailing them to crosses kind.

      Umm, you DO know that the people who did that "nailing them to crosses" thing weren't actually Christians, right? Technically, they (the Romans) were what used to be called "pagans".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Different Sony, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until they're president

    16. Re:Different Sony, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, have you been to iraq?, isnt US christian??,

    17. Re:Different Sony, right? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get back to me when abortion clinic bombings become an everyday occurrence like religious murders in the Muslim world.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:Different Sony, right? by Omegamogo · · Score: 1

      The church wanted ROYALTIES. They not only wanted the game pulled AFTER its release, but they also wanted a payment for its depiction IIRC. This is being done pre-release. The guy who emailed Sony about this never asked for a recall but suggested a patch. And it was ONE guy. They just had to over-react like this.

    19. Re:Different Sony, right? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      It's all about calculated risk - piss off some English Catholics, you get some peeved letters in the local paper. Piss off Muslims, you get explosions, beheadings, and people living out their lives in hiding.

      Actually, the cathedral in question was Anglican, not Catholic. When English Catholics get sufficiently pissed off, they'll rent a cellar underneath your house and load it up with enough gunpowder to blow you up and take half the city with you.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    20. Re:Different Sony, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than medical centres where women receive abortions?

    21. Re:Different Sony, right? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      It's all about calculated risk - piss off some English Catholics, you get some peeved letters in the local paper. Piss off Muslims, you get explosions, beheadings, and people living out their lives in hiding.

      Guy Fawkes would like to disagree.

      We'll be celebrating his failure (though wishing for a modern incarnation to succeed) in a little over two weeks.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    22. Re:Different Sony, right? by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Not just Sony. Have you seen the amount of posts here equating a request for a patch with rioting, bomb threats and beheadings?

      Sometimes I wonder how the human race got as far as it got, with the amount of stupidity on display.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    23. Re:Different Sony, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Christians dont blow stuff up anymore ..." :

      Georges W Bush with Iraq and Afghanistan ?
      Worldwide bankers with the Economy ?
      Sarkozy and his temper ? ... and some christians *are* blowing jobs ...

      So, think again ...

    24. Re:Different Sony, right? by MenThal · · Score: 1

      It's all about calculated risk - piss off some English Catholics, you get some peeved letters in the local paper. Piss off Muslims, you get explosions, beheadings, and people living out their lives in hiding.

      So they are saving that PR-goldmine for the next GTA release instead then?

  16. Freedom of Speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe they were afraid of being beheaded or murdered for making fun of the prophet?
    Worse than a beheading maybe they were afraid of the copyright infringement.

    Religion of peace?

    1. Re:Freedom of Speech? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Do you know what we call a "Prophet" whomarries a 6 year old?

      A pedophile.

      --
  17. Everytime you self-censor Islamic references, by eddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the radicals and the terrorists win acceptance of the idea that they alone get to dictate how the world handles their pet delusion.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:Everytime you self-censor Islamic references, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      every time some pushes an agenda where not doing so means the terrorists win, the terrorists win.

      No i haven't heard what recursion is.. why do you ask?

    2. Re:Everytime you self-censor Islamic references, by rhizome · · Score: 1

      the radicals and the terrorists win acceptance of the idea that they alone get to dictate how the world handles their pet delusion.

      Right, because Western religions never quibble with the content of videogames.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    3. Re:Everytime you self-censor Islamic references, by eddy · · Score: 1

      Did anyone say they never did?

      <crickets>

      Thought not.

      Try not to be a conclusion jumping idiot.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    4. Re:Everytime you self-censor Islamic references, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever consider that they put the song in without knowing the translation, and after finding out they had objections? This isn't the South Park debacle, it's Sony pulling the game because it's bad PR for parents to be telling one another "I heard that Little Big Planet game has songs which preach jihad!"

    5. Re:Everytime you self-censor Islamic references, by rhizome · · Score: 1

      Did anyone say they never did?

      It's implied by the following statement: "...they alone get to dictate how the world handles their pet delusion." My point involves the fact that "their pet delusion" is shared by religious people the world over, and that this content restriction derives from the Koran makes no difference since fundamentalists commonly attempt to hold the secular world to the teachings of their chosen text, regardless of affiliation.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  18. Big Deal! by TheNecromancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    My pvp guild in WoW says that EVERY DAY!!!!

    --
    Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
    1. Re:Big Deal! by GabriellaKat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My pvp guild in WoW says that EVERY DAY!!!!

      Yeah, but Muslims are a "big guild" IRL, and they PVP also.

      --
      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your politician, and hitting them?"
  19. So? by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who fucking cares? Is the Qu'ran copyrighted or something? Stop coddling these bullshit religions.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:So? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      When these "bullshit religions" respond with riots and killing the folks that offend them, perhaps you would like to reconsider.

      I know of no Western government that is prepared to deal with Islam other than by acceding to its demands.

    2. Re:So? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      No, that is even more reason to not give in to them, what are you French or something?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  20. They just want to be sensitive by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, it's amazing how sensitive people can be when offending some religious group might get your building bombed or your artists shot or stabbed.

  21. come on now... by SeNtM · · Score: 0

    I think that if I can handle the impact of virtually beating someone with a baseball-bat, shooting them, stealing their car and hitting the strip club...I can handle a little subliminal apocalyptic chanting in a foreign language...

    --
    "There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
  22. This only affects the advanced copies by hmm_slashdot · · Score: 1

    It's all right — they only pulled the advanced copies. We'll still be able to get the standard edition on time.

  23. STOP BEING SO SENSITIVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why is anything accosiated with religion soo taboo, is it really that big of a deal?! I for one am sick of tip toeing around for fear that something simple and innocuous will start a holy war

    1. Re:STOP BEING SO SENSITIVE by argent · · Score: 1

      Andres Serrano? Is that you?

    2. Re:STOP BEING SO SENSITIVE by maliqua · · Score: 1

      nope ;) didn't mean to be anonymous

    3. Re:STOP BEING SO SENSITIVE by argent · · Score: 1

      So, you missed the reference too?

      Google "Andres Serrano".

  24. Sephiroth! by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Noooooo! Don't take my Final Fantasy CDs away! Not my Evangelion! Not Ghost in the Shell!

    1. Re:Sephiroth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a sephiroth worshipper, I find it extremely offensive that Sephiroth is portrayed as a troubled and insane overlord, when every religious FFer knows that Metor didn't really intend destruction, it knew all along that Geia would need to be summoned to spread around the life force! It was all for the world's benefit!

      Would you rather have people like Rufus running things? I didn't vote for him.

      And Aeris just accidentally fell into a sword. Sephiroth only appeared to be holding it!

      Please Sony, recall the blasphemy and release the REAL FF7 story and let us put these lies behind us.

  25. Brian Eno & David Byrne by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Eno and Byrne had a song called with Quran verses in the 80's and they were told by some imam that it was blasphemy to put the words of god to "grooves" (Byrne's word I think), so they took the song off the album.

    1. Re:Brian Eno & David Byrne by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      Ehm, isn't islam the religion where they constantly doodle off their disharmonic sing-sang? Even through loudspeakers, at 5 in the morning, etc.?
      These guys are seriously nuts.

    2. Re:Brian Eno & David Byrne by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      If you can't talk about religion, you can't criticize religion.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    3. Re:Brian Eno & David Byrne by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Both my copies (LP and CD) of "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts" by Brian Eno and David Byrne have a track called "Qu'ran" which includes vocals that very well could be recitations from the Qur'an, for all the Arabic I know.

    4. Re:Brian Eno & David Byrne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a similar line a Muslim once told me that if you interpret the Qur'an in certain strict ways you should not even listen to music. If I remember rightly, he said it was to do with music being something which alters your state of mind which should be avoided.

      So I guess putting the Qur'an to music is a big no no.

    5. Re:Brian Eno & David Byrne by vistic · · Score: 1

      Aaaaaaahhhh.... my copy of this CD does not have this song. :-(

      But it still has some crazy televangelist stuff. (Which always seems to go well with music... like "Welcome to Paradise" by Front242.)

      I have some songs by And One which include some Muslim prayer I think ("Metalhammer" and "Techno Man").

  26. Arabic hardcore gaming forums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, examples please?

  27. Pay for the permissions by UncleMantis · · Score: 0

    It would be so much cheaper if they just payed for the sample instead of having a total recall. IDIOTS!

    --
    Uncle Mantis
  28. What are they trying to prove? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is a fear of Islamic backlash or something, then it is completely baseless. Bohemian Rhapsody is the living proof of it.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3593532.stm

    What is insulting is delaying the game and blaming it on Muslims out of nowhere.

    Assassin's Creed also comes to mind where a game has lots of Islamic references to it.

  29. That must be a great book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "'Every soul shall have the taste of death' ... 'All that is on earth will perish'"

    I wonder what it is about the Muslim religion that causes so many Westerners to distrust their intents.

    1. Re:That must be a great book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, damn those muslims for saying everybody dies, and that nothing on earth lasts forever! Their terrorist ways will not be forgotten!

    2. Re:That must be a great book by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I think just about every major religion (and common sense) embraces these same ideals.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:That must be a great book by mweather · · Score: 1

      Not Buddhism. If you don't live forever in Nirvana, you're doing it wrong.

  30. The fuck is going on here? by M1rth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many slashdot trolls had mod points today?

    Seriously - this has meaning. The guess that they pulled the game because of fears over rioting/threats or actual violence is a pretty good guess given the "objectionable" content that's being removed from the game.

    Would you think they'd have removed it for a couple of lines in Yiddish? Or a Biblical quotation, or a Celtic pagan quotation? You can be 100% sure that they wouldn't.

    Give Parent Poster his karma back. This wasn't "flamebait."

    --
    If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
    1. Re:The fuck is going on here? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Dude, all the mods as of late are troll-modding.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    2. Re:The fuck is going on here? by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      The GP never said anything about it being a "religion of peace", just a general statement of "Western distrust if Islam" which seems a perfectly valid statement. It was the PP that tossed in the comment about "religion of peace". It's true most westerners distrust Islam, and for many very good reasons. Many westerners also distrust Christianity, although admittedly a lot fewer than those that distrust Islam. Pointing out general distrust in Islam is neither a statement advocating or opposing Islam, merely an observation of the prevailing attitude.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  31. South Park Did It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Either everything is OK or nothing is."

    also, I have that eno/byrne track "qu'ran" from my life in the bush of ghosts. It's great. Fundies are nuts.

  32. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by Detritus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no right to "not to be offended". Especially when the group in question, or at least its more vocal components, respond to satire and criticism with riots, bombs, and assassination. In some parts of the world, all it takes is an ill-founded rumor that someone interprets as a slight to Islam to trigger riots and mob violence. The solution isn't to appease the mob. If people act like thugs, they should be treated like thugs.

    Give us a call when you get tired of living in the dark ages.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by el_monkeyo · · Score: 1

      What, so you'd rather see angry mobs burning effigies of Sack Boy on the news? At least they'd actually look like who they're supposed to be for once.

    2. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

      If we ignore the Middle East then they'll just tell us to call them when we need to drive our cars again. They were allowed to rot in the desert for a long time before the West discovered they had most of the oil.

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    3. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by mog007 · · Score: 1

      If you look at the region of the world where Islam is most popular, or at least the area where most of the countries that are Islamic theocracies, you'll see that that region was actually very, very, scientifically advanced a few centuries ago. For some reason, the people over there got tired of being enlightened and went BACK into the dark ages.

      I doubt the people over there would be comfortable with a renewed enlightenment, and I'm certain their political and religious leaders don't want one.

    4. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      Well shit, there goes the planet.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    5. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If you look at the region of the world where Islam is most popular, or at least the area where most of the countries that are Islamic theocracies, you'll see that that region was actually very, very, scientifically advanced a few centuries ago. For some reason, the people over there got tired of being enlightened and went BACK into the dark ages.

      If by "a few centuries", you mean "eight or so", then you're quite correct about their scientific advancement (though perhaps "scientific" is arguable, as the scientific method wasn't part of the their world picture).

      It should be pointed out that "For some reason..." isn't a mystery, though. They stopped that whole enlightened thing when the Turks and Mongols came in and started killing everyone except the peasantry in that region. Tamerlane, for instance, basically did to Persia what Pol Pot tried to do for Cambodia - kill off everyone more educated than your average donkey.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop bombing us first.

    7. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ring!

    8. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Informative

      And for those that claim that Islam is the "peaceful religion" and all that, go read this.

      That place is a picture archive of Mohammed. Evidently, depicting images of Mohammed is yet another 'bad thing'. Now, read the email responses.

      Yeah, real enlightened.

      May allah throw you in the hell fire.
      You are the enemy of islam. Your abode would be fire.
      You are really funny with your democracy you sun of whores
      fuck you kafir pieces of shit
      please tell me where you live now and all your adress to me so i can come to your house and make new pictures using your BLOODS!!!!!!!!
      just wish that all yu gay shits die a veriiii nasssty death
      fuck your virgin mary, bastards
      ill see u burn in HELL ....promise...
      ey motherfucker, i'll fuck your generation, if you do not delete this site.
      just wait and watch one day the 9/11 will be repeated.

      Well, there's a sample from the people who follow the enlightened path of Islam. Hatred, intolerance and bigotry. That about sums it up.

      --
    9. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The solution isn't to appease the mob. If people act like thugs, they should be treated like thugs."

      And if a particular mob belief system is toxic, we are considered trolls for pointing that out.

      I could scorn Communism or any other secular ideology all I wish, but superstitions are somehow a protected species.

      If it's OK to scorn a bad secular system, why should a superstition be exempt?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    10. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by Caboosian · · Score: 1

      There is no right to "not to be offended".

      You're 100% right. However, there IS a right to not purchase something that offends you. Sony doesn't give a damn about what's right or what's wrong; they just want to avoid negative press. Seeing as this issue is (in recent history) more touchy than most, they're making (what seems to be) a sound business decision.

    11. Re:Help! Help! I'm being repressed! by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      What mob? What thugs? One guy suggesting a patch, that's what I see.

      Aren't you being a bit hysterical?

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  33. Audio samples from the Qur'an? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would that be the original release or the digitally remastered 5.1 version from just a couple of years ago? Personally, I prefer the vinyl version because digital just can't carry the warmth of Allah's vocals and that sweet guitar.

    1. Re:Audio samples from the Qur'an? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the vinyl version because digital just can't carry the warmth

      Oh no it's the greater holy war!

    2. Re:Audio samples from the Qur'an? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the vinyl version

      Faggot

  34. The fuck is going on here? by M1rth · · Score: 1

    How many slashdot trolls had mod points today?

    This was a great reply. Far too many people parrot "religion of peace, religion of peace" over and over again and have never done any serious study of what Islam actually says.

    Give the PP his karma back. This wasn't a "flamebait" post, somebody abused the mod system. We lack a "-1 disagree" for a fucking reason, the mod system is NOT supposed to be used that way.

    --
    If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
  35. Buddha says by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Buddha says I should forgive you and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right.

    1. Re:Buddha says by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "two wrongs don't make a right."

      Buddha is wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Buddha says by nsayer · · Score: 1

      No, but three rights make a left.

    3. Re:Buddha says by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Buddha says I should forgive you and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right.

      Buddha says that the forgiveness that he offers is not forgiveness. Therefore it is called forgiveness.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:Buddha says by MaxwellEdison · · Score: 1

      And four or more rights just make me dizzy!

      --
      -=Bang Bang=-
    5. Re:Buddha says by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      I'm utterly convinced that the Jesus as referenced in the new testament was a traveler from the East. There are records of such a person, and such a person being executed with the cross. So I believe that there was such a person.

      However, I think he came from the east with buddhist ideals, and integrated and preached these ideas as best he could to the people in the Mideast. There is a large section of his life which is not known at all - we have stories of him going to temple, and then we skip right to his baptism (I'm a little rusty, so there might have been more before that). He could very well have traveled to the far east or even the near-east and learned of buddhist teachings.

      Unfortunately, much of his teachings were politically corrupted over time, and by the time the New Testament was actually written down and codified, it had become splintered into many different parishes across the Mediterranean. The Romans convened a committee to codify and unify the disparate teachings, and thus we have the dogma we have today.

      At the very heart of his teachings, if you ignore the embellished and likely fabricated miracles, Jesus was very Buddhist!

      Also, while two wrongs don't make a right, two lefts DO.

    6. Re:Buddha says by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I very much doubt Jesus was an Easterner. He is described as living in Judaea, and having lived all his life in Nazareth. His name is Jewish (it's a Romanisation of 'Joshua'). And reading his teachings, he refers frequently to the Hebrew scriptures, which he clearly knows in great detail, as is expected of an educated Jew.

      I gather that scholars of such matters generally place Jesus as part of the Essene tradition. It's not impossible that he had been exposed to Eastern thought, though. The Roman Empire traded along the Silk Road, and Chinese silk adorned the rich imperial elite. It's certainly possible that ideas originating from the Buddha or from Confucius were in circulation in first-century Judaea and might have caught the imagination of a piously-inclined young carpenter.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    7. Re:Buddha says by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Buddhism... that's the religion with not just one, but hundreds of hells, each more horrible than the last, right? (Of course, they prefer not to talk about that when they're busy pretending to be all different from Western religions.)

    8. Re:Buddha says by sexconker · · Score: 1

      And 1 right and a u-turn make a Michigan left.

    9. Re:Buddha says by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      However, I think he came from the east with buddhist ideals, and integrated and preached these ideas as best he could to the people in the Mideast.

      What the hell? Buddhist Ideals? Are you kidding me? Do you have ANY idea what Buddhist society was like back then? They were some of the most barbaric, xenophobic, and megalomaniacal people in the world. When the Brits wanted to explore and map Tibet they had to send in Indian spies who were in constant danger of being beheaded. Tibetans would regularly execute any outsiders whom they found on their territory. You also seem to forget that the Samurai were majorly influenced by "Buddhist Ideals", and they were the most accomplished killers-for-hire of their time.

      This myth of peaceful Buddhist cultures is a modern invention. It's nothing but another new-age fad. The idea that Jesus was peaceful because he was a Buddhist is simply ridiculous.

    10. Re:Buddha says by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Oh, and it takes three lefts to make a right, not two. So you're wrong on every count. Good job!

    11. Re:Buddha says by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      Buddhism is great. When a samurai cuts a dude into two pieces, it's really helpful to remember that he's nothing but petals in a stream. It really helps you sleep at night.

      See also:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohei
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamabushi

    12. Re:Buddha says by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

      Rather telling perhaps that for instance jews have lived in India for centuries and never been prosecuted.

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    13. Re:Buddha says by discord5 · · Score: 1

      Buddha says I should forgive you and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right.

      But three lefts do make a right.

    14. Re:Buddha says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddha says

      LO! I read that as Bubba says...

    15. Re:Buddha says by painlord2k · · Score: 1

      How many bhuddists are there in the wester India (now Pakistan) and Afghanistan? None, because they was exterminate by the muslims conquerors. Hindus were a bit more militaristic than bhuddists and resisted the extermination.

    16. Re:Buddha says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tibet != Buddhist

  36. So if I type these lines into a Youtube comment... by Legion_SB · · Score: 1

    ... and use the audio preview, will radicals go blow up Youtube?

    Because I would be OK with that.

    --
    'a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM DATA WHERE name LIKE '%'... if you're reading this, it didn't work.
  37. Also one line roughly translates to..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Try Burma Shave." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma-Shave

  38. Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did people start believing that they can live their whole lives without being offended? If we constantly pander to everyone who is offended by something and destroy it, in the end we will have no form of creative expression left.

  39. ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With Sony's track record, I'm surprised they didn't choose to ship a rootkit that would make your machine 100% islam-free if you failed to identify yourself as one.

    This whole situation angers me. If religion is outside of governments, school systems and pretty much all of the social infrastructure, then why is it dictating gaming policies?

  40. A Muslim is not Islam by Rand+Race · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... the licensed LBP soundtrack song 'Tapha Niang' by Muslim artist Toumani Diabate's Symmetrical Orchestra uses voice excerpts from the Qur'an in its musical composition.

    ...

    We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending.

    What's this "we" shit?

    --
    Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
    1. Re:A Muslim is not Islam by canozmen · · Score: 1

      We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending.

      What's this "we" shit?

      pure bullshit

    2. Re:A Muslim is not Islam by GabriellaKat · · Score: 1

      Obviously not the artist, because he is muslim also. "the licensed LBP soundtrack song 'Tapha Niang' by Muslim artist Toumani Diabate's Symmetrical Orchestra uses voice excerpts from the Qur'an in its musical composition."

      --
      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your politician, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:A Muslim is not Islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's because the muslims are a bunch of mindless faggots. sure, the occasional christian goes on a rampage but any time a fucking muslim holy man opens his faggot mouth he's either sucking a big cock or he's condemning someone to death. other muslims follow the bitch and either start sucking cocks or rioting.

      mindless bitches.

      FUCK MOHAMMAD! FUCK ALLAH! FUCK ISLAM!

    4. Re:A Muslim is not Islam by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The same "we" that Pat Robertson speaks of when talking about Christians.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:A Muslim is not Islam by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Just the wording on something like this is disturbing, though I realize not ALL Muslims would talk about this issue in this way.
      "We Muslims". Right there, they are not only setting themselves apart as a group, but also saying they only ever speak as one group.

      Funny, when the rest of the world turns around and stereotypes them, they get all offended. I say it's a double standard.

      --
      -
  41. Changing culture... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm convinced that this sort of thing is a last gasp amongst the extremists to hold onto the old ways. The fact is that the world is changing and nobody can stop it. The Middle East is being exposed to the outside world via the internet and other media. The religious hardliners are realizing that they're losing their hold on the people and I suppose like most people they don't like change.

    I realize American imperialism is brought up as the reason for this violence. But I'm convinced that's bullshit. The widespread dissemination of foreign cultures is the more real and subtle threat.

    I think it's similar to certain Christian groups in this country coming out trying to denounce evolution and force creationism on people. Deep down they realize their religion is being marginalized and are grasping at straws trying to make it relevant.

    The problem is that they're confusing a crumbling power structure for faith when the two aren't connected. There's no reason whatsoever why a person can't be devoutly religious and still accept science and progress.

    The key difference, however, is that Muslim extremists are more likely to blow things up to get their way, or at least threaten to do so. Sure, you get the occasional Christian nut who tries to shoot an abortion doctor or something, but that's the extent of it. But Christians consistently denounce the act. On the other hand, at best Muslims won't say anything at all and at worst will run into the streets in celebration.

    But ultimately these small victories are insignificant in the long run. And having heard some guys complaining about how Middle Eastern is growing increasingly liberal the days of religious extremism are numbered.

    Political correctness has crippled America. By no means am I endorsing bigotry and racism, but we should be able to have open discourse about issues without it devolving into claims of racism.

    The percentage of the Muslim population in the US is .6% to 1%. The last time I checked we still had free speech and the presence of this passage in a game is not intentionally offensive from what I can tell.

    When Andres Serrano dumped a crucifix in urine and photographed it he wasn't banned from displaying his work. Hell, a nun actually stated in an interview that the work was not blasphemous but rather an example of what people have done to Christ.

    1. Re:Changing culture... by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      The problem with the "extremists" is that they have local and national leaders behind them in their efforts to hold onto "the old ways". These folks are convinced their way is right and the only way. Their religious materials say "kill the infidels" and they believe it.

      Seen the riots triggered by the Danish cartoons? This is the sort of response that can be whipped up on demand. No, we haven't had that sort of riot in the US or UK yet, but it is only a matter of time. If you were to get 1% of the population of the city of London or Chicago to converge in the city center you would have a very formidable mob indeed.

      It is a mindset that most Westerners cannot conceive of. And by discounting it, we feed it every day.

    2. Re:Changing culture... by khallow · · Score: 1

      It is a mindset that most Westerners cannot conceive of. And by discounting it, we feed it every day.

      This is "sky is falling" material. My take is that you are one of the people with the problem. For all the hot air, there's never been proof that radical Islamists are any different from other ideological extremists. Fair and just rule of law has always triumphed over ideological extremism. Belief systems in themselves simply are not strong enough to destroy an open society.

    3. Re:Changing culture... by __aaojfq2958 · · Score: 1

      The key difference, however, is that Muslim extremists are more likely to blow things up to get their way, or at least threaten to do so. Sure, you get the occasional Christian nut who tries to shoot an abortion doctor or something, but that's the extent of it. But Christians consistently denounce the act. On the other hand, at best Muslims won't say anything at all and at worst will run into the streets in celebration.

      Erm,, and you would know when Muslims denounce terrorism because which news channel do you watch?

    4. Re:Changing culture... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I realize American imperialism is brought up as the reason for this violence. But I'm convinced that's bullshit. The widespread dissemination of foreign cultures is the more real and subtle threat.

      Did you even read what you wrote?
      American imperialism = widespread dissemination of foreign culture

      In case it's not clear, American culture is a foreign culture to the Muslim world.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Changing culture... by rossz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I realize American imperialism is brought up as the reason for this violence. But I'm convinced that's bullshit.

      They have to have someone to blame for their problems. Their leaders point them at us to distract.

      The middle eastern countries have been awash in oil money for decades. What have they done with it? They haven't built any universities of science or medicine. They haven't created a center of technology to provide jobs. They have built lots of religious schools which teach, surprise, the West, especially the U.S. and Israel, are evil and keeping them down. They have no excuse. With the amount of money they have available to them they could build world class universities and produce their own doctors, scientists, and engineers. Instead, anyone who wants an education in anything except islamic religion must go to a western university.

      When their oil money finally dries up, they will have nothing to show for it except a whole lot of pissed off people who have been taught to hate.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    6. Re:Changing culture... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      I meant exactly what I said. American imperialism is the excuse used for the resistance. But what's bringing about social change in the Middle East is the influence of foreign cultures, foreign from the perspective of people in the region.

      The obvious sources are the internet, entertainment and consumer products in general. Given how widespread European presence is in the region, I'm not surprised if they're influenced most by European culture.

    7. Re:Changing culture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree absolutely. "The Last Temptation of Christ" comes out, and Christians hold peaceful protests and picketing of theaters showing it. Compare that to "The Satanic Verses," where Salman Rushdie's head was demanded. Islam? Tolerant it ain't.

    8. Re:Changing culture... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      When Andres Serrano dumped a crucifix in urine and photographed it he wasn't banned from displaying his work. Hell, a nun actually stated in an interview that the work was not blasphemous but rather an example of what people have done to Christ.

      Actually, when it was exhibited in Melbourne, a Christian nutjob attacked it with a hammer, and it was removed from display. i think the exhibition was actually closed, if I remember correctly.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    9. Re:Changing culture... by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

      What a thoughtful post and I thank you for taking the time to write it.

      You make a good point about the expansion of American secular culture around the world and how it can't be stopped. People like to enjoy themselves. Arbitrary rules, and all religions are full of them, must eventually fall because there is no clear "why". Read the Catholic explanation of what the Trinity means for a good example. It's an explanation, but not one that makes any sense when you deconstruct the words.

      I realize American imperialism is brought up as the reason for this violence. But I'm convinced that's bullshit. The widespread dissemination of foreign cultures is the more real and subtle threat.

      I have to disagree about your assessment of American influence. The US has taken the side of many wildly unpopular and brutal dictators out of expediency, and the chickens are home to roost. The effects are twofold: one, injustice breeds extremism, and two, America becomes the obvious target. While you may or may not be right that the threat of American secularism is what makes the Sheiks nervous, the foot soldiers aren't motivated by hatred of Brittany Spears. They are motivated by the experience of spending their entire life in a Palestinian refugee camp, for example. And, unfortunately, it's not hard to find the American handiwork in many oppressive Muslim countries.

      Most of those situations might have their roots in the cold war which had to be won by whatever means necessary, but the cold war doesn't explain everything. Aramco, for example. That's about access to oil, plain and simple and most people outside of the US believe the Iraq invasion was also.

      The key difference, however, is that Muslim extremists are more likely to blow things up to get their way, or at least threaten to do so. Sure, you get the occasional Christian nut who tries to shoot an abortion doctor or something, but that's the extent of it. But Christians consistently denounce the act. On the other hand, at best Muslims won't say anything at all and at worst will run into the streets in celebration.

      I'm sorry if I misinterpret your meaning, but you seem to be saying there is something different about Islam that leads to more violence and more extreme violence. No. It's not Islam, for it's no more arbitrary and supernatural than any other religion. The difference is the countries where it is predominantly practiced. They tend to be undemocratic and poor. People are more likely to be uneducated, desperate, and hopeless. That's the real reason for the high levels of violence.

      I understand that it must be very annoying for Americans to see people celebrating attacks on innocent Americans and the temptation must be strong to dismiss all those people as savages at best or enemies at worst. They aren't America's enemy, they are their own oppressive governments' enemies. Rightly or wrongly they believe the US supports their oppressors. Fair or not, America needs to convince them otherwise.

      I do hope nobody sees this as an attack on the US, because in spite of everything the world is lucky the US exists in the form it does. However, one can't blame Islam per se, the blame exists as a complicated historical process and America is involved.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    10. Re:Changing culture... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am against censorship in about any way possible. But, let's not pretend Muslims are some degenerate group who preach violence on the poor, innocent Christians.

      The key difference, however, is that Muslim extremists are more likely to blow things up to get their way, or at least threaten to do so. Sure, you get the occasional Christian nut who tries to shoot an abortion doctor or something, but that's the extent of it. But Christians consistently denounce the act. On the other hand, at best Muslims won't say anything at all and at worst will run into the streets in celebration.

      No, the difference is that the news you watch reports it more often when Muslims advocate violence than when Christians do. When I was growing up, I attended a church at my parent's requirement. I saw the hatred and hypocrisy firsthand. As other people have pointed out, the Bible has its passages advocating violence as well, passages that some people use to justify violence against others. Hell, I went to church during the height of the cold war, and part of the motivation for us memorizing Bible verses was "for when the enemy comes and takes away our Bibles, so we will still know the Bible." That's right, the Christians expected the evil commies to come along and take away our Bibles. And this was in the *least* radical Baptist church I went to; the stuff I heard at the church that was part of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches was even more toe-curling.

      And, believe me, there are some people professing to be Christians that don't denounce abortion doctor shootings. They may not fill the streets praising God for another murder, but that's because a lot of the fundamentalist Christians have a persecution complex and feel the need to hide this part of themselves. How else do you explain how the most fundamentalist Christians feel that they are a persecuted minority given the behavior of the national leaders during the Reagan and Bush II years?

      When Andres Serrano dumped a crucifix in urine and photographed it he wasn't banned from displaying his work.

      He wasn't banned, but many Christians protested and called some called for the destruction of his career. The fact that the national government through the NEA paid for the work made people even more angry. But, when this work was released during my church-going years in high school, there were a lot of people saying rather un-Christian things about what should happen to the artist at my church. Him never being able to take another photograph was perhaps the kindest of these attitudes, but a lot of people would have shed no tears of he had been gunned down in the street.

      Even now, the most passionate Republicans, the ones who believe Obama is a "secret Muslim" intending to destroy the U.S. don't exactly have the best wishes for Obama's long life. So, yeah, in the end, there are plenty of Christian whackjobs out there as well that advocate violence and murder when people don't agree with their beliefs. We just don't have media interested in painting Christians in the worst possible light in order to justify the government's desire to stay perpetually at war. You probably just haven't seen them up close and personal as I have.

      Posting AC because this is a part of my life I'd rather not have other people know much about.

  42. What are you smoking? by M1rth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how come any time someone talks about what's wrong in the Muslim faith, the knee jerk reaction is from a bunch of /b/tards who want to shit all over other religions?

    This has nothing to do with the argument, and NeutronCowboy's argument is "crap" as he puts it. It is entirely possible for MULTIPLE religions to be wrong and trying to distract from Islam's problems by attacking another religion is a poor debate tactic, a desperate attempt to distract the argument from something he knows he can't honestly defend.

    Remember, hell is exothermic.

    --
    If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
    1. Re:What are you smoking? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      For someone to use the term /b/tard, you'd have to have spent a significant amount of time there. Nice going.

      The point is not to distract from a problem. The point is to point out that the fundamental problem is not the text, but the people. And unless you understand that, you will not be able to deal with Islamic extremists.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:What are you smoking? by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      The point is that the bible says a bunch of retarded shit, too, but the mostly Christian nations of Western Europe and the US still manage to be general decent people in a liberal sense DESPITE their religious bullshittery. Even the strongest fundamentalist churches in the US today do not generally recommend the stoning of anyone who works on Sunday.

      As societies advance in wealth, as they are exposed to new ideas, they tend to liberalize, slowly, and the religions of that society adapt or disappear.

    3. Re:What are you smoking? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Looks like we're agreeing on this. Funny. :)

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:What are you smoking? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If you hate 90% of people then your point stands. If not, the point is that since all religions are regressive and offensive but most people aren't so bad, apparently most people try to filter the bad out of their religions and keep the good.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  43. hahaha by armodude · · Score: 1

    unbelievably hilarious this is milliones of dollars down the tubes the song!!!!!! and it's in arabic too!!! http://www.myspace.com/toumanidiabate TAPHA NIANG!! CLICK IT

    1. Re:hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the spam, queerbait!!!~

  44. Sure by waldoj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's one:

    [C]onsider the 19-year old Loula Abboud, a dark curl kissing her forehead and a golden cross around her neck. A Lebanese Christian, she was one of the first women to earn the title of istishhadiyah when she blew herself up in 1985 as Israeli troops moved in to capture her guerilla group near the town of Aoun in southern Lebanon

    But that's rather beside the point. Suicide bombings are committed almost exclusively in defense of homeland against occupying forces (or, rather, the belief that such a thing is occurring), especially forces of a different religion, and especially when those doing the defending live in relative poverty. There are very few cases of countries with poor, heavily Christian populations that are occupied by people of other religions. Ergo, hardly any Christian suicide bombings.

    1. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Irish had a fine tradition of being Christian bombers overrun and held in poverty by another faith, and they weren't real keen on *suicide* bombings. That's a good way to run out of bomb-makers.

    2. Re:Sure by pruss · · Score: 1

      The situation in countries like Poland under communism was pretty much like that: poor, heavily Christian population, believing their country to be occupied by religiously hostile Communists. Now, in some sense Communism wasn't a religion, but that shouldn't make any difference here in light of the fact that what matters is not the religiosity of the occupiers as the religious hostility.

      And, no, there weren't suicide bombings as far as I know.

  45. Re:Peace If Moryath (553296)'s Hmm... do reli by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    "Hmm... do religions of peace say things like:"

    Gets 4, Insightful, then the above posting -- even though by an Anonymous Coward -- should ALSO, for quoting parallels from the bible (which probably are correctly or faithfully quoted, and as yet i see no allegations that AC falsely quoted the bible...) get 4, Insightful, or 4, Informative.

    Where is the balance?

    Also, I JUST LAST WEEK (IIRC) mentioned in /. that Sony or other some other game maker had sampled music from an Eastern religion/faith around the early 2000's and had to yank back all those released copies for having offended the religion in question.

    One would think that a major games producer would not let that one happen again. Seems to me they are courting a religious war or at least risk of one. If not Sony's HQ, then it has defiant, ignorant, or belligerent employees who sampled, inserted, and released the snippets under some misguided assumption that a few seconds here and there won't have negative consequences. In aggregate, they are exposing copyrighted, strenuously defended music that *some* one or many out there will take great umbrage to the use of in a video game. Doesn't matter that many religions' bibles or truth books themselves contain orders to slay/crush/burn/purge/etc. And, even if it was a "good/free PR move/stunt", automakers themselves try to slay/slash/burn/sue those who try to give their cars free rep in videos, movies, and documentaries, even though the cars in in plain public view and are not afforded privacy.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  46. Wrong department... by Vexler · · Score: 1

    It should be filed under "Jihadist Humor", you insensitive infidel!

  47. Any other religion would be fair game by jellybear · · Score: 1

    Video games a chock-a-block full of references to symbols and themes from Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism. Some references are serious. Some are frivolous. Some are disparaging. Yet we accept that games, which are part of our cultural expression, are allowed to comment on religion. There is only one religion which causes adherents to become so upset over the least mention.

    1. Re:Any other religion would be fair game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best not to piss off the Sikhs either (as Indira Gandhi found out). Now there is a religion which actually requires you to be armed at all times (with a dagger) (leaders refused to meet the Pope in 2008 if they would have to remove their weapons; it is taken quite seriously but very rarely abused). UK law has an exception to allow this.

  48. This Muslim's buying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... and I know a lot about Islam. I teach it to other Muslims. Yes, the religion teaches that the Quran must not recited in conjunction with music. It must be vocal only, although most of the reciters inflect their voice so that it is beautiful to hear, much like music is. The musician that Sony licensed it from should be contacted about it. I wouldn't blame Sony for it. But I can see why some Muslims might be offended by it. Grow up. It's only two phrases, not an entire passage. I personally think it is kind of cool to have it in a game, as long as it is innocuous and not used to promote an anti-Islamic agenda (other posters here have cut and pasted text for that). "Bismillah" ("in the name of God") is in The Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen and I love it everytime I hear it. And then Beelzebul shortly thereafter takes me back to the D&D days...

    1. Re:This Muslim's buying... by margretli · · Score: 1

      I have always thought if someone sing a song about me (or quoted me in a song) it's one of the highest compliments. Songs/music, they are always beautiful. I wonder what would happen to the musician that created the track? I hope nothing ill happens because of this.

    2. Re:This Muslim's buying... by LionMage · · Score: 1

      Yes, the religion teaches that the Quran must not recited in conjunction with music. It must be vocal only, although most of the reciters inflect their voice so that it is beautiful to hear, much like music is. The musician that Sony licensed it from should be contacted about it.

      The musician in question is, as others have commented in other threads, a Muslim. What brand of Muslim, I couldn't say. (Many of the linked sites are blocked here where I work, alas.) Clearly, that practitioner didn't get the message that he shouldn't be doing what he's doing, or else his brand of Islam doesn't have that particular prohibition.

      So, where does this supposed prohibition come from? The Koran itself? (And if so, does this require interpretation, or is the meaning absolutely plain?) Or does it come from the hadith, and if so, whose version?

      Sufis, who incorporate song and dance into their practice, are often derided as not being "true" Muslims; they are considered heretics by conservatives. So I know this hatred of music isn't universal among Muslims, but then the question becomes, who gets to define which version of a religion is legitimate and which version is not?

  49. Re:Terrorist Messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bible == Terrorist Qur'an

  50. Anonymous coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most of you have no true understanding of religion or the 'BIBLE'. Remember that the bible that most of you study has been culled and edited and re-purposed by the lyceum hundreds of years ago.

    Some of the same versus from the qu'ran and the torah were all part of the bible, when it was available in it's entirety. If you don't believe me do some research.

    Second, Islam, like christianity, and judaism is man's creation. what people take away from what they read or are taught is not the design of god. ANY GOD. Why else would ther be so many 'denomination' (sp?) (or Tribes)? ie. pentecostal, baptist, sunni, shi-ite, hassidic?
    Religion is the design of man, and his want to control what he cannot control. Spiritualism is the understanding that there is some god, somewhere....

  51. It does seem to be a double standard by nobodyman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Church of England got miffed when one of their churches was featured prominently in one of the levels of Resistance: Fall Of Man. This is a seemingly bigger offense than including a couple snippets of the Quran, yet Sony refused to recall the game.

    1. Re:It does seem to be a double standard by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      People would take the Church of England if they regularly called for (and carried out!) the assassination of their enemies, instead of just suing them or whatever it was that they did. Let this be a lesson to other religions! If you want to get taken seriously by people, kill them!

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:It does seem to be a double standard by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Church of England?

      CAKE OR DEATH!

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:It does seem to be a double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should have been more upset that the game was terrible.

    4. Re:It does seem to be a double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big difference between delaying a game and recalling a game, not to mention the amount of work required to build/remove the offensive section of the game.

      Also I believe Sony said after the resistance incident that they would not do it again... and they aren't.

  52. Thats so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gay.

  53. Pay who? God? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    To paraphrase J.T. Kirk - "What does a God need with money?"

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  54. Zelda, Ocarina of time repeat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If anyone recalls, the original release of Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of Time, used the muslim call to prayer as a component of the theme music to the fire temple which generated some controversy. It was replaced in future releases (as well as a modification to the design on the mirror shield which also used some religious imagery. It's possible to argue that people were overreacting to find that snippet of music controversial, when other religious music and themes seem to have been used in the game without concern such as gregorian chant in the temple of time, a mishmash of eastern religious imagery in the desert temple, etc. On the other hand, the call to prayer is extremely integral to Islam. It is traditionally called out from a minaret five times a day to signal prayer times. Considering that Islam has some fairly strong prohibitions against idolatry and fire worship in particular (due to an association with zoroastrianism, although from what I understand, it's a largely incorrect one). So it is understandable that some muslims could get upset at someone using one of islams most important prayers and associating it with a paganistic fire temple. It's not islam in particular either. There are fundamentalist Christian groups that raise a fuss every time an upside down cross or the black mass appears in a movie or game. Most of the time no-one bothers to accommodate them (unless they really, really want to get their game onto wal~mart shelves). That's at least in part because most of these groups are in the US, and most of the US is christian of some flavor or another(christianity is the state religion as far as many people, including most of those in authority, are concerned) so the population feels like it collectively "owns" christian imagery, whereas imagery from other religions is more off-limits. It's the same for other things. Jews are generally very comfortable making jokes about wholesale prices and nosejobs, black people are pretty comfortable with the dreaded n-word, no-one can get mad at anyone whose name ends in -ski for making polish jokes, etc. So, as much as I'm for freedom of speech, I also recognize that some of it can make people upset and you shouldn't needlessly insult them, on the other hand, if this sort of thing were applied to every cultural, religious, and racial reference, we wouldn't have a lot left to work with.

  55. Slightly bad examples... by Moryath · · Score: 1

    Mohammed... well, you know about him. :P

    Jesus, when the mob came for him, surrendered and said "do as you will."

    Buddha preached peace after giving up the war he had been trained for and seeking enlightenment.

    Joseph Smith, when the mob came for him, pulled a gun someone had smuggled him and went down shooting. To the Mormons, he "died a martyr's death." Whether you call him a martyr or not, he certainly didn't go down peacefully.

    Krishna had his whole army fight for him, "personally" refused to raise a weapon, but DID serve as a warlord's charioteer (Bhagavad Gita). Interestingly, he was charioteer for the side fighting AGAINST his own army.

    And for L. Ron Hubbard... do a quick search on "Fair Game" policy and "Auditing Process R2-45" (which, paraphrased, is "shoot them with a colt 45"). Hubbard ordered this personally on at least five different occasions including March 6, 1968 when he ordered 12 people to be killed.

  56. Flying spaghetti monster says by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Many Noodly Caresses to you, my followers".

    1. Re:Flying spaghetti monster says by dangitman · · Score: 1

      And may the bolognese be with you, Noodly One.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  57. There are plenty of more general ones by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of more general ones, or which had been interpreted as still applying.

    E.g., Joan d'Arc was burned at the stake for the heresy of... wearing men's clothes. So that's one commandment which wasn't interpreted as only applying to a certain point in time. The various bits of mysoginism in the bible were not only still applied as late as the 20'th century in some parts, but some bible-belt fundies still cling to them as an argument for male supremacy.

    E.g., "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was still applied jolly well in the renaissance, and in some places as late as the 1800's. As in, really, the last documented case we have is from 1811. Heck, in the USA the witch trials were in 1692 to 1693. We're talking _almost_ 1700's, FFS.

    Nobody took it as, basically, "ah, well, it only applied to the times in the Exodus."

    E.g., all those commanded massacres actually pain a rather consistent image: for spreading heresy or rather religion among the Lord's folks, the punishment is complete genocide. It's not a big extrapolation to make that that's generally what the Lord wishes, since every single time that's what he commanded. And it's not just my interpretation, but Moses's too: in Numbers he acts surprised that the soldiers didn't kill those women and children in the first place. I mean, duh, it should have been obvious. He doesn't go, "ok, you did well to wait and see if the Lord commands mass-murder in this speciffic case", but as if it should have been obvious that that's what's expected.

    Etc.

    Now you may point out that we decided to be civilized and no longer apply that crap. Guess what? Most modern muslims aren't islamists either.

    But at any rate, it's stuff that _we_ decided to no longer apply. In the "good book", it's still there.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:There are plenty of more general ones by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Heck, in the USA [sic] the witch trials were in 1692 to 1693. We're talking _almost_ 1700's, FFS.

      The early settlers of the Americas were the backwards religious fundamentalists that couldn't stand their "secular" european cultures (like, science). They went to start a new, ignorant life. That culture dominates in much of the country.

    2. Re:There are plenty of more general ones by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've heard two translations of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" that are supposed to be reasonably accurate:
      1) "Thou shalt not suffer a blower upon knots to live" (Apparently a form of black magic.)
      2) "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" (Sounds reasonable.)

      What an actual accurate translation would be I can't say, but the current Bible is not a reflection of the original, except loosely. So it *IS* intended as instruction for modern individuals. Because it was re-written. (Of course, modern here means at around the time of King James, for the most common version.)

      Still, what it's supposed to be doing is displaying scenarios, and then telling you what god would want you to do in that scenario. This isn't the same as a direct command.

      THAT said, anyone who takes instructions written by a bunch of semi-literate men who had never seen powered machinery that wasn't animal powered, and uses it to tell them how to live in the current world, is so stupid that it might actually be a good idea to take their advice. It will still be stupid, but at least it once wouldn't have been, and analogies might be reasonable.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:There are plenty of more general ones by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I am under the impression that they came to escape the oppressive Church of England and the Catholic Church.

  58. Which one is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientology? Oh wait, you said "religion." Thought ya said "pyramid scheme." Nevermind...

  59. For whoever think the religon debate is pointless by LordDax · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are some online importers who still have copies of the game. National Console Support Inc. may have a few copies left, but they have been going fast now that the game has been indefinetly recalled. You might want to check with other importers to see if they have any copies left in stock.

    I've got one on the way for delivery tomorrow, cause really I don't give a flying ratass about who's religion is saying what. Less religion, more faith. You all can go argue while im going to get back to waiting to play LBP tomorrow.

  60. Re:So if I type these lines into a Youtube comment by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

    Nah, they just block it.

    --
    ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
  61. Reduction of violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. That's why I fully support it when we go into Muslim countries and kill their people. Overall, it reduces the violence.

  62. Family values facade by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yet all of the Muslims I've ever met are charming, peaceful friendly people. Big on family values, very law abiding, and socially responsible.

    You probably haven't gotten to know them very well. The majority of people are dishonest, hypocritical, untrustworthy and at least condone some measure of violence against their opponents. This is despite any religious or political facade that underlies the way they think and act.

    Show me a "family values" person and chances are that they are intolerant, prejudiced, and hypocritical.

    1. Re:Family values facade by mollymoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      The majority of people are dishonest, hypocritical, untrustworthy and at least condone some measure of violence against their opponents.

      Wow, either you live somewhere seriously shitty or are projecting. The majority of people are honest, trustworthy and non-violent (but I agree on the hypocritical). If the majority really were dishonest, untrustworthy and violent society just wouldn't function.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    2. Re:Family values facade by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      You said:

      The majority of people are honest, trustworthy and non-violent (but I agree on the hypocritical).

      Well about honesty at least, I will give you a reference:

      According to a national study, 91 percent of people lie on a regular basis

      -http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:9qQnT8iuIioJ:www.jmu.edu/madisononline/madison/wm_library/FALL06_P58-P71.pdf+percentage+of+people+who+lie&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

      I have also read in a different study that 60% of people tell a lie within the first ten minutes of a conversation. To me this is scary and shows my deviance.

      As for stealing, most people are opportunistic and the majority will steal indirectly or when there isn't a direct association of money involved (i.e. cheating on taxes, stealing a can of coke found on a table rather than a one dollar bill standing on a table) rather than robbing a bank.

      As for violence, most people do it by proxy (i.e. through the support of War, like the War on Drugs, etc), or by causing a person to be fired from a job by gossiping about that person, etc. People don't need to use a gun to hurt other people.

      You said:

      If the majority really were dishonest, untrustworthy and violent society just wouldn't function.

      People cooperate enough with each other to survive. They do this because they have to, not because they want to.

    3. Re:Family values facade by XLR8DST8 · · Score: 1

      he must be from los angeles. a sunny place, for shady people.

    4. Re:Family values facade by sharkbiter · · Score: 1

      Washington D.C.

      'nuff said...

    5. Re:Family values facade by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Wow, either you live somewhere seriously shitty or are projecting. The majority of people are honest, trustworthy and non-violent (but I agree on the hypocritical). If the majority really were dishonest, untrustworthy and violent society just wouldn't function.

      I agree with the GP here. The problem is, most people are "honest, trustworthy and non-violent" with people who are like themselves. Your peers, neighbors, coworkers, those that share the same ideologies as you, you treat like "normal" upstanding citizens.

      There is a streak of xenophobia (not just racial) throughout all of humanity, though, and when different people, ways of life, or ways of thinking come through, all bets are off. Again, inside any cluster of people, they will tend to consider themselves and "the majority of people" in a positive light, since the rest are just outliers.

    6. Re:Family values facade by alxkit · · Score: 0

      wait... you're serious.

    7. Re:Family values facade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of people are dishonest, hypocritical, untrustworthy and at least condone some measure of violence against their opponents.

      Wow, either you live somewhere seriously shitty or are projecting. The majority of people are honest, trustworthy and non-violent (but I agree on the hypocritical).

      The majority of people are motivated by self-interest. You need only look at the corporate environment to have a good example of that. Honesty and trust are very rare commodities in the business world, and even more rare when politics get involved. All it takes to prove this is to take a team who value honesty and trust, insert one person who's sufficiently proficient at backstabbing, and within a months time your team will have either isolated that person from their team or have embraced the new policy of backstabbing.

      From personal experience, I can attest to the fact that one rotten apple can do a lot of damage to team spirit and if the corporate infrastructure then rewards such behavior honesty and trust often become secondary objectives.

      If the majority really were dishonest, untrustworthy and violent society just wouldn't function.

      While I agree on the violent part, dishonesty and a lack of trustworthiness seem to be the very foundation of modern politics. I'm not talking just about the US here (because I'm sure someone would twist this into that kind of a debate, especially now), but various other democratic governments.

      We have grown a Machiavellian culture in our society, where any weakness of another person is leverage against them. While deep down as human beings we have the traits of compassion and benevolence, self-interest more than often dominates if we gain sufficient by a certain action or inaction.

    8. Re:Family values facade by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Wow, again. But bigger. (That was a cumulative wow for all the responses.)

      It seems everybody's opinion jibes with my 32 years of first-hand experience of interacting with people. In part I suspect this is because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you don't trust someone they're a damn sight less likely to trust you. The converse is true - a great way to gain trust is to show that you trust the other person. If you treat people like animals, they act like animals. If you treat them as human beings, with trust and respect, it's almost always reciprocated.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    9. Re:Family values facade by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Well I've got more than 32 years on you (but really that is irrelevant).

      If you don't trust someone they're a damn sight less likely to trust you.

      For me, I have always assumed that people are trustworthy (well less so as I get older, but I always find it intellectually fair to assume people are trustworthy). What I have noticed however, is that the more I get to know these "trustworthy" people the more I find contradictions in their stories, evidence of backstabbing etc. On the contrary, people have even called me a liar when I say the simplest things. I've always found that people who lie always assume other people lie. People almost always project the facade of trust and friendship.

      My experiences have largely been backed up by science. Some people just have a lot of cognitive dissonance about the subject (i.e. they cannot believe their best friend is a backstabber or their husband is an adulterer and so deny the facts). Taking the adultery example, about 90% of Americans believe adultery is wrong and yet 50-70 percent of Americans commit adultery.

      In general I would say you are either very lucky or very naive.

      Best regards,

      UTW

  63. wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh great! Nerds discussing religion ... way to go!

  64. What's this "we" .... by querist · · Score: 1

    (Please forgive the length of this post, but this discussion brings up several interesting points that should avoid any religious biases.)

    Their use of the phrase "We Muslims" should make sense, actually.

    It is common (at least in my experience from hearing from clergy from numerous religions) for clergy to speak on behalf of the entire religion or belief system, so if this request came from an Imman, it should not surprise anyone that he (are there ever female Immans?) would say "We Muslims" or simply "Muslims", though the use of "We" there implies a clear separation between the speaker and the audience, implying that the audience in this case are not Muslims. (1) Christian clergy will often make statements regarding the beliefs of "Christians" in a very general sense, again speaking for the religion.

    It is also far too common for extremists of any sort to arrogate to themselves the position of speaking for the entire group, either in simple terms such as the phrase "We Muslims", or in slightly more arrogant terms such as "True Christians..." (implying, of course, that anyone who disagrees with them is not a "true" Christian.) (2)

    Unfortunately, there is not quite enough information (especially given the post to which this a response) to determine the exact nature of those making the initial request.

    If setting the words of their holy texts to music is truly considered offensive to the majority interpretation of their texts(3), then I applaud the game publisher for being respectful of people's beliefs. If this, however, is only a minority or extremist position, then I feel sorry for the publisher for having given in to the pressure of extremists.

    Notes:
    (1) I do not speak any Semitic language, but I find it interesting that Chinese (at least Mandarin) has two pronouns that can be translated as "we", "wo3 men", which is a general form such as used in English, and "zan2 men", which specifically includes the listener. American Sign Language has a stronger distinction between a speficically inclusive first person plural pronoun and a specifically exclusive first person plural pronoun. (Actually, the specificity is a side-effect of the nature of signed languages in general. Signed languages have some very fascinating characteristics that I suspect some folks on Slashdot would find interesting.) Also, ASL's second person plural pronouns can do that, clearly specifying a subset of the listeners and optionally including non-present parties.

    Any Arabic speakers care to comment on first person plural pronouns in Arabic?

    (2) I consider the "True Christian" comment more arrogant because it is claiming that other people who claim to be believers but do not agree with the speaker are deceived and are not really Christians. The "We Muslims" phrase, at least on the surface, grants acceptance to anyone who claims to be a Muslim.

    (3) I am aware of at least one "sect" of Christianity (some consider it a cult) that objects to the use of musical instruments in worship (yes, there are Old Testament examples, but their claim is based on the fact that there are no New Testament examples), but I am not aware of any other religion that objects to any setting of their texts to music, a capella or accompanied. If my memory serves, the Psalms were specifically set to music (including various musical terms such as "maskil" and "selah" being used) to aid in memorization of the texts. I find it curious that any religion would object to setting their texts to music when it is fairly widely known that setting something to music makes it easier to memorize.

    1. Re:What's this "we" .... by bewmius · · Score: 1

      There are two 1st-person plural pronouns in Arabic, one colloquial (ihna) and one formal (nahnu), and they both mean essentially the same thing. Muslim preachers (khatibs/imams/etc.) usually don't refer to all Muslims using "we," they usually refer to them as "Al-Muslimun", which is plural for "the Muslims".

  65. Free Speech Tempered by Respect by Ariphim · · Score: 1

    I completely agree that there needs to be the ability to have an open discussion about religion in this country given that the United States draws its strength from it's diversity. However, even if you do not agree with another person's views, you should at least attempt to respect them enough not to be intentionally offensive.

    According to TFA, all that was posted to the forum was:

    "We Muslims consider the mixing of music and words from our Holy Quran deeply offending. We hope you would remove that track from the game immediately via an online patch, and make sure that all future shipments of the game disk do not contain it."

    There were no threats of jihad or bombings. No one has been killed. It was a simple and reasonable request.

    While I'm all for free speech, does the passage add value to the game? It sounds like it is being used as background sounds that 98% of gamers will never pay attention to let alone understand. It could just as easily be replaced by Klingon passages and have the same effect.

    To leave it passages in when it adds nothing just to prove a point seems petty and spiteful rather than adding anything to the national discussion. It would be as if I wore a t-shirt with a picture of an aborted fetus to a Christian rally at a park. It doesn't add anything and is designed to offend those particular people.

    The /. responses have been overwhelmingly negative towards Muslims, yet their sole input (in the form of the forum response) has probably been the most understanding and civilized I have read in this string.

    1. Re:Free Speech Tempered by Respect by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      That argument would hold a lot more water if Sony had shown the same respect "not to be intentionally offensive" when Christians complained.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Free Speech Tempered by Respect by Ariphim · · Score: 1

      Very true. But we are in a very poor spot if we are looking to companies like Sony to be a moral guide.

    3. Re:Free Speech Tempered by Respect by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      However, even if you do not agree with another person's views, you should at least attempt to respect them enough not to be intentionally offensive.

      This is the video game industry we're talking about. If you truly agree what you say there, you should be boycotting the entire industry.

  66. On the other hand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, the US is currently on a "crusade" (the commander in chief's gallant words, not mine) in the middle east. How many people has that killed? How many pagan indians (take your pick whether from india or the americas) have been killed off (not so incredibly distant in history) by upright, peaceful christians. Now, I know what you're thinking, that's not religious, that's just plain old race hatred. Well, whatever.

  67. Religion? by shish · · Score: 1

    "Every soul shall have the taste of death, all that is on earth will perish."

    Every post so far has concentrated on it being removed to appease the muslims, but maybe they just removed it because it's f'ing creepy, and this is supposed to be a kid's game?

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    1. Re:Religion? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      'cuz of all those kids fluent in Arabic who'll be playing this game...right?

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    2. Re:Religion? by shish · · Score: 1

      Yes. You do know that they have computers outside america, right?

      (And even if the language isn't understood, that only makes it slightly less creepy IMHO)

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  68. Ripping off Star Control? by vangoober · · Score: 1

    I know the Ur'Quan are a malevolent bunch, but I would have thought they'd see this as fair use.

    Wait - how was that spelled?

  69. Radical Minority by tobiah · · Score: 1

    That minority is about to pass a gay marriage ban in liberal California.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:Radical Minority by ZFox · · Score: 1

      GP said "stone-the-gays minority" not ban-the-gay-marriage minority. The right to exist vs. the right to a govt. sanctioned socio-economic union. I, for one, see a LARGE difference between the two.

    2. Re:Radical Minority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      GP said "stone-the-gays minority" not ban-the-gay-marriage minority. The right to exist vs. the right to a govt. sanctioned socio-economic union. I, for one, see a LARGE difference between the two.

      Ah yes, I see the difference as well.

      It's okay that they live, but they shouldn't expect to be treated as equal members of society. They are second class citizens.

      Actually, the "stone-the-gays" group is merely a subset of the "ban-the-gay-marriage" group, which in turn is a subset of the larger "hetero-sexist" group.

    3. Re:Radical Minority by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      No gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. So it's not really about equality it's about state recognition of a socioeconomic union. Which California already did before gay marriage was legalized by the way. They called them civil unions. I'm not sure if the proposition would affect those.

    4. Re:Radical Minority by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      How free would you feel if you were "free to marry someone, as long as they're of the same sex"? Would knowing that you had that oh-so-cleverly-worded "equal right to marry someone of the same sex" freedom make you feel all better about never being allowed to get married just because you don't fancy dudes?

      (My apologies and please reverse the genders of my comment if you're a woman).

    5. Re:Radical Minority by JoshJ · · Score: 1

      A woman cannot marry a woman. A man can marry a woman. This is clearly sexual discrimination.

      Case closed.

    6. Re:Radical Minority by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      We probably agree here, actually. I support the idea that gay couples should be able to enter into an agreement equivalent in the eyes of the law to marriage. Whether or not they call it "marriage" or not doesn't bother me either way.

      What I was pointing out is that gays are not specifically denied rights that are afforded to straight people. That's nitpicking until you realize that the courts, not the voters, made gay marriage legal in California. I am not convinced this is a civil rights issue that needs that sort of intervention from the bench.

      I can and will vote against the proposition to ban gay marriage outright. However, if it passes, at least the people will have had their say.

  70. The Message Is Clear by I'll+Provide+The+War · · Score: 1

    If you want a large corporation to respect your wishes you must present a clear and present danger to their personal safety.

    Sadly, I am sure other fringe groups are receiving this message loud and clear.

  71. Copyright has expired by rossdee · · Score: 1

    The Prophet Muhammad revealed the Holy Q'uran around 622AD. Therefore its out of copyroght now. (Just like the Bible)

    However I do think that the Holy Writings need to be treated with respect.

  72. I did. by 2short · · Score: 1

    Thanks for asking.

  73. Pastafarians! Rise up! by Ngarrang · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Noodly appendages of FSM command you to rise up and slay with Prego sauce anyone who offends His Noodliness by including words of wisdom from his Great Cookbook in their songs or slashdot posts. Unless, of course, proper accrediting is given, including a sprinkle of oregano and paprika.

    --
    Bearded Dragon
  74. Not far enough. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    If you want people to take your religion seriously you had better have nukes.

    That's why the 'Church of the SubGenius' has three.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Not far enough. by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I dunno about this. Everybody takes the Muslims seriously and they have no nukes. And when was the last time anybody took England or France seriously?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  75. Be Affraid of the Boogie Man!!! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Oh no! Stop, the words hurt... oh they hurt so much, especially fairy tale death threats from hypocrite religious writings.

    I'm so fragile.

    Thanks Sony.

  76. The state's with muslim majorities by Britz · · Score: 1

    As you correctly point out:
    - definitive tiers of haves and have-nots based on who's a member of the official state religion
    - wipe out anyone who doesn't believe in the state-sponsored religion

    Many places where muslims are in the majority are rotten. Then again many places in southern Africa are even worse. But that is the reason why many muslims love places like Europe or America with religous freedom, because they can practice their form without fear of persecution from the majority kind of Islam. Just like the many christians that fled (christian) religious persecution in Europe just two centuries ago. You do remember what Halloween was all about?

    Anyways, if you research christianity you will find just as many references to violence in theory (bible) as well as history (crusades) and current affairs (bloody fighting between christian and muslim villages in Indonesia).

  77. Not Knuckling Under by tobiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ya, I'd give Sony the benefit of the doubt here. "Offensive" and "controversial" just might not be image they're looking for in this title. If their self-censorship undermined a critical plot point I could see getting upset about this, but this sounds like it's some throwaway background track that isn't worth the hassle.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  78. Actually... by mbessey · · Score: 3, Informative

    At least, I do not believe any Pope ever has apologized for the crusades, to name just one tiny thing.

    The prior Pope did actually explicitly apologize for the crusades, among other things.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1071456

    The current Pope has also apologized for other failings of the Catholic church.

  79. The track was recorded and performed by Muslims by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    From what the article says, it seems some Muslims got offended at their holy scriptures being put to music. So, Sony is bowing to a few fundamentalist Muslims to keep from generating any bad press about how they offend Islam or whatever.

    And you need to put this together with the fact that the track has been released on an album recorded by a Muslim artist (Toumani Diabaté), backed by musicians who are mostly Muslims too. Clearly, many Muslims don't object to this.

  80. Some context by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Another look at the meaning is clearly only stating the obvious: Just as every life has a beginning it also too must have an end. It does not say that everyone must perish in a cruel, agonizing, bloody death. Even the bible has some pretty dark lines surpassing this one.

    I have the album that song comes from. If I remember correctly (from the liner notes), the song is an hommage to the singer's late brother.

    The musicians are mostly from Mali, but the singer is from Senegal, and this one song is primarily in Wolof. Nearly all of the musicians are in the record are Muslims, so they'd indeed be familiar with koranic language. And clearly, they don't seem to think that it's objectionable for Muslims to use Koranic quotations in music.

  81. I'm confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've played video games with songs that make bible references, but the Qur'an is taboo? Is there something about the religion itself that makes it sacrelidge to be quoted in a song/game or something?

    1. Re:I'm confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because if you complain, the bastards will blow you, and all of us, up.

  82. Re:Terrorist Messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Bible ^ Qur'an) == Sesame Street

  83. Paying respect... to whom? by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    What about the people of Mali, a majority Muslim country, who're having the music of one of their major artists pulled from the game?

    1. Re:Paying respect... to whom? by Wicked+Zen · · Score: 1

      Here's a fixed link in case anyone want s to know who the parent is referring to: Toumani Diabate.

  84. Priorities? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    You might want to rethink your priorities. Slaughtering children, babies and people warrants no comment but "hamstring their horses" gets 'exceedingly cruel'?

    It's also worth pointing out that all these are from the Old Testament. By the New Testament God has mellowed somewhat...or, more to the point, the people writing the books have. Unlike the Koran I don't think that anyone believes that the bible is, verbatim, the word of God (certainly not mainstream christianity) but rather the word as interpreted by humans who were around at the time.

  85. let me put it this way by GregNorc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the soundtrack featured "Hallowed Be Thy Name" by Iron Maiden, would the game be delayed? Would we be having this dicussion?

    No.

    If this was an attempt to negatively portray Islam, I'd agree with removing it - hate speech should not be being disseminated by any company with half a brain. But to remove content simply because of a vocal minority (especially one that is not usually even part of the target audience) is absurd!

  86. Screw the bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow I don't see many Muslims protest against Muslims who call for the distruction of Israel and killing of all Jews. Neither I see many Muslims condemn 9-11... So I say: screw the two-faced bastards. We cave in to this, so what's next? Obligatory chadras for all Western women cause it offends some Muslim idiots? There's a lot of idiots out there, but the Muslim ones seem especially idiotic... ...and I'm not even an American, a Jew, or a Christian... Why don't American Muslims ever organize protest marches against Muslim bigotry?

  87. I Don't Get It by sexconker · · Score: 1

    If they don't allow pictures of Mohammed, how do they know what ht looks like?

    How then, would they recognize a picture of him to bitch about?

  88. Similar problem by BigBadBus · · Score: 1

    The same kind of problem was levelled against "Eyes Wide Shut" and its use of a sacred Hindu text.

  89. FINALLY by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    Finally someone who shows a bit more insight than the usual "Izlams are gunna behead Sony haw haw haw" dumbfucks. Not every Muslim is Osama bin Laden and globalization is changing things for them as well.

    Anyway, I think Sony did this because they thought they'd sell more copies of the game this way. Any complaints should go to Sony for thinking such a thing, not to Islam for... well, I don't know. It's not even a free speech issue because the song wasn't supposed to carry a message in the game. They just accidentally used those Qur'an bits and then removed the songs when someone told them. Nothing more, nothing less.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    1. Re:FINALLY by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Not every Christian during the middle ages was a crusader, but that still doesn't excuse their tacit indifference in sitting back and allowing the church to commit such atrocities.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:FINALLY by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The church doesn't. Certain members of the faith do. Do you really expect every Muslim in the world to travel to the Near East and search the entire region until they have found every single extremist? What exactly can they do, apart from trying to ignore the extremists and live their own life?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  90. In other news by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pete Seeger and The Byrds are recalling all copies of "Turn! Turn! Turn! (to Everything There is a Season)", because somehow or another parts of the Bible got into it. Search your old vinyl and ship it back!

  91. Re:And? What's wrong with being polite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's cowering from bullies, and there's annoying your friends. Changing something to avoid offending someone isn't new, and it isn't being bullied. It's being polite.

    If you don't know anything of the Qur'an, would you notice the difference from one bit of Arabic chanting from another? So what did you lose, a few days to play the game?

    Yeah, it could be such a small sample that even people who know what to listen for wouldn't really notice, and this could be seen as being hyper-sensitive to concerns of others, but it's also good for some PR. "Hey, we realized we had some possibly offensive material in this game, we'll get it to you a bit later and update things" goes over a lot better than irate parents demanding to know why their religion is being mocked.

  92. The true religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hinduism, Buddhism is the only true religion that teach peace. "Live and let live" =)

  93. Christian "holy" words by Oyjord · · Score: 0

    "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do." --Exodus 21:7 Condoning the selling of one's daughter into slavery, grooovy. "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." --Leviticus 25:44 Condoning the possession of slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." --Exodus 35:2 Guess I'll just pop into Target on a Sunday and smite all the employees. "[On the other hand], all creatures in seas and rivers that do not have fins and scales, whether they are small aquatic animals or other aquatic creatures, must be avoided by you." --Leviticus 11:10 Hmmm, guess that those eating shrimp at the Red Lobster should also be smote! "Do not cut off the hair on the sides of your head. Do not shave off the edges of your beard." --Leviticus 19:27 DAMN! I just shaved. Guess I have to smite myself. "The hare shall be unclean to you although it brings up its cud, since it does not have a true hoof. The pig shall be unclean to you although it has a true hoof which is cloven, since it does not chew its cud. Do not eat the flesh of any of these animals. [At this time] do not touch their carcasses, since they are unclean to you." --Leviticus 11:6-8 Damn, guess all the NFL quarterbacks need smiting!

  94. Muslim, Christian, Jahovian(?) whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'm safe in saying that any creature that would kill, threaten death or even massively disrupt other's ways of life over a story they were told, no matter how vivid, at an adult age and refuse all education to the contrary, is both pathetic and dangerous.

    I don't quite care what they call the thing they worship, be it a Jesus or a Mohammad or a Xenu or a Noodle.

    In the same way that that old lady, who I'm sure is delightfully friendly to her neighborhood children, told John McCain that Barack Obama scared her because he was 'Arab', there are otherwise nice people who fall into a trap of ignorance.

    Society encourages it, the corrupt with power encourage it, and persistent habits of old encourage it.

    The fix is the children. In the end, the best defense we have against these sad individuals is to educate the children as much as we can.

    We already see it working. How many younger voters(early twenties and around), especially the educated ones, really care Obama is black?

    How many middle class youth in North America and Europe would really hate someone purely because they are Muslim?

    Are there truly evil people out there? Yes. Sociopaths still permeate. However, they rely on their army remaining witless.

    I personally disagree with organized religion in general. I think it's a dangerous tool abused by dangerous people. I forgot who said "Evil men will do evil things, but for good men to do evil, that takes religion."

    But I can't fault someone for following it. I grew up catholic with the most liberal parents I can think of, yet it -still- took me quite a few years to realize I was praying to a ceiling, not a God. Not everyone can give up that comfort. Especially if they have other pressures applied to them.

    And all that was encouraged upon me by my former Church was that I should treat others as I wish to be treated myself(they were very liberal for Roman Catholics). I'd probably be a very different man if the priest told me to knife anyone who used the lord's name in vain.

  95. Re:Peace -- Plagiarizing the bible... by darkonc · · Score: 1

    Does "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" sound familiar?

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  96. How do you say Oops in Arabic? by fortapocalypse · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, Slashdot doesn't let you post Arabic characters, but it is the rightmost word in the following page: http://www.howtosayin.com/say/arabic/oops+I+did+it+again.html
    (literally it means "pardon")

    But seriously, poor LittleBigPlanet. What a tough break. That has to be expensive.

  97. Oh god! Then read a good book. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    The miserable conditions of labourers during the industrial revolution are legendary. Child labour was quite common adn women rights were non existent.

    A woman without a man to support her was condemned to abject poverty.

    Honestly, were do you guys learn history?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  98. Islam in Senegal by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Ah, so this explains some of the enmity directed toward Sufis, then. FWIW, I don't think this view that mixing sacred scripture and music is a bad thing is entirely universal, merely a view held by the conservative elements within Islam. Which seem to be the most vocal. (That said, I am also aware that many Wahabbists view music in general as un-islamic or anti-islamic, so Sufis get a lot of hate just for that...)

    ...and you've put your finger on something relevant to the present case, too. The song in question is from West Africa, and the singer in that track is Senegalese (the group is from Mali). Sufi brotherhoods dominate Senegalese Islam.

  99. There is not such thing as a typical Muslim. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Informative

    I lived in a Muslim country and have visited several others, I also have Muslim friends in non Muslim countries.

    First of all in countries were Muslims are not forced to fast you will find many that do not fast. Once they have the same freedoms as everybody else this becomes a matter of personal choice.

    In countries were fasting is mandatory well, what are you supposed to do? (they do have religious police in those places).

    Not all Muslims memorize the Holly Quoran, it certainly is studied assiduously and it certainly is well received if you can memorize it, but by no means is common.

    Not all Muslim men have beards. This happens only in some very backwards countries. In other countries this is a non issue.

    Muslim women dress modestly certainly, but there is a spectrum of interpretation. IN Indonesia and Malaysia women wear trousers, the ones that don't wear colorful batik dresses with flowers, this would be unthinkable in Saudi Arabia or parts of Afghanistan. In Turkey you will see plenty of local women wearing modern western clothes and mini skirts.

     

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  100. Nobody demanded anything. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    It was pointed out to Sony the happening of these verses (which Muslim faith considers improper to reproduce with music).

    Then Sony took the decision as we know it.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Nobody demanded anything. by Otto · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that decision was the wrong one. Why should Sony cater to somebody's ridiculous belief system? Why should anybody else cater to that system?

      This is not about muslim faith, this is about the stupidity of catering to religious beliefs. I'd feel the same way if some christians complained too.

      It offends me to see a company cater to superstition, and I will not support them because of it.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  101. I am not a Muslim, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought there was some muslim tenet that said you aren't supposed to reproduce the Qu'ran except in its true entirety.

    I don't think there is any such tenet; you can find plenty of examples of Muslims citing parts of the Quran without citing the rest. There are two things I can think of which I think are relevant:

    1. Islam is very emphatetic about the Quran being used very, very carefully, so as not to distort its true meaning. Two examples:
      • Distrust of translations; you should preferably learn Arabic and read the Quran in the original. Compare to Protestant Christianity, where Bible translations are the norm.
      • Even when discussing Islam in languages other than Arabic, insistence in using the Arabic religious vocabulary. If you read English web sites written for a Muslim readership, you'll see this: the discussion is in English, but all the nouns are Arabic.
    2. Different branches of Islam have historically had very different attitudes towards art and music. Some very conservative groups regard music as sinful, while others (e.g., the Sufis) regard music as a path to religious salvation. Even within the less conservative groups, the attitude toward music can be subtle; for example, music may be forbidden in some places of worship, or in some situations, but allowed elsewhere.

    So this means there are two likely avenues of objection to the use of a line of the Quran in a song in a videogame: (a) the line is taken out of context, and its true meaning distorted; (b) the line is being used in a musical piece that incites sin (and some might judge all music to incite sin, while others would strongly disagree).

    1. Re:I am not a Muslim, but... by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      Was reading the yahoo article about this. Apparently some groups protested because mixing song and scripture is offensive to some muslim groups.

  102. Ur'Quan? by Velocir · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else read the summary as a copyright infringement of Star Control? The quote translations really seemed to fit what the Ur'Quan are all about...

  103. Emphasis on textual integrity by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    The difference here is that Islam has a much, much bigger emphasis on textual integrity of scripture.

    Remember that, according to Islam, God first revealed his book to the Jews, and then later to the Christians, but both distorted the text and the meaning; only the Muslims have a correct version of the book. Because of this, Muslims are supposed to be very careful about how the text of the Koran is used. For example, they are encouraged to learn Arabic so they can read it in the original. Even if they don't know Arabic, when they discuss religious matters in their native languages, they prefer to use the Arabic words for religious concepts instead of vernacular translations. When citing the Koran, it is very important to convey the context of the quote carefully, so as not to distort the meaning. Etc.

    Compare this with, say, the widespread acceptance and official sanction of Bible translations among Christian denominations (e.g., the Vulgata and the King James translation). In Islam, translations of the Koran are at best seen as a necessary evil, and are certainly not given any official sanction.

  104. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  105. Yes, lots of Muslims are violent nuts / kooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi -

    I'm sorry, I tried for many years to be tolerant, even after Sept 11th, but event after event (even going back to the "death sentence" on Salmon Rushdie) has convinced me that a lot of Muslims are simply nuts. If people find that offensive, fine. I find many actions of the global Muslim community to be offensive.

    If people are killed in riots over cartoons, then I'm sure Sony has to remove this from the game or else face the possibility of violent bombers attacking them in the real world.

    It seems to me that the Muslim religion has little to do with peace, but a lot to do with overt sexism, intolerance and violence.

    - Callous in California

  106. Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Complaints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should find all references to pirates and things in games and then complain on behalf on behalf of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  107. Just make it out of fireproof material by gelfling · · Score: 1

    And the swarthy outraged mobs can arson to their retarded little heart's desire.

  108. context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its about context .. if somebody included a script from the bible in playboy magazine , will Christians be happy?

  109. ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn by jagdish · · Score: 1

    Stupid people wasting their time on insignificant things. Nothing and no one can save you. Abandon hope now. Accept that you are a semi-evolved ape thing mercifully ignorant of the sanity-blasting truths of the greater cosmos.

  110. SELECT "facts" FROM ass WHERE "suits my purpose" by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

    WTF?! How did you forget Saudi Arabia in your "wealthiest" are democracies silliness!?! Did you happen to look up ANY of your "facts"?!

    Hint: They're ALL bullshit!

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  111. C'mon guys you can do it!! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

    Awww...I was really hoping all this christian-muslim flaming was gonna break the 1000 post barrier...*sigh*...now my life has no meaning.

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  112. I can't help but wonder... by Trayal · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much overlap there is between those that don't want a couple lines from the Qur'an quoted in a song in a videogame, and those that want intelligent design to be taught in science class.

  113. Religion is a social group by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A religion is a social group, you can see this clearly if you ever are outside a church/temple/mosque after a session. This is especially true for muslim immigrants. NOT because they are muslim, but because they started out with little else. All imigrants tend to cluster together, to a place they can be among their own, follow their own traditions, remember the good old times, talk about going back but never actually doing it of course.

    It is hard to break out of a social group and a social group can only function if it doesn't allow its members to leave. It is the nature of being a group. If you do not try to 'protect' your members, keeping them close, then you are not a group.

    It really isn't about religion. African americans have got the same social pressure groups trying to keep blacks black and any who try to break out are pulled back in.

    Part of the problem is that if you try to leave your native group, you will for always be an outcast. A black person living a white/asian/jewish life or whatever will still never truly be that. If you see a black amish guy, what do you see first. Amish or black? I use the skin color black because it is so obvious.

    A muslim immigrant who truly intigrates into western society, and there are plenty, will still for always be considered by his new home to be an outsider. And of course an outcast by his old group. Having lived in foreign countries, it ain't that easy to always be the foreigner, the stranger. Sometimes it is just easier to stick with what you know because at least those people seem to accept you for you are. They don't, they only accept you if you are them, but at least they accept you.

    Muslims are hardly the only homophobes on this earth and there are plenty of homosexual muslims. Part of the reason this sentiment seems so strong among muslims is because it allows them to have a clear identifier that differences them from their new society.

    Basically, they got a choice, what fundemental rule do we follow.

    Muslims are required by their faith to donate a percentage of their income to charity. So if you want to call yourself muslim, pay 10% of you salary. Nah.

    Muslims are required by their faith to abstain from stimulants. So if you want to call yourself muslim, you got to stop smoking, drinking, chocolate etc etc. Nah.

    Muslims are required by their faith to pay to the direction of Mekka 3 times a day. So if yu want to call yourself muslim your entire day schedule is dictated by your religion. Nah.

    Muslims are required by their faith to look down onto gays. So if you if you want to call yourself muslims as a young teen in a world that doesn't like you and thinks you are the lowest form of life, you have to look down on another group. WINNER!

    By that way, other groups got similar problems. US citizens when looking at the heroes and cowards of the world have two choices:

    Look at their own war history, arriving late for every World War, getting their ass kicked in korea and having to settle for the current ceasefire. Being kicked out of vietnam. Being kicked out of somalie. Late the balkin wars and doing nothing to stop it. Afraid to interfere in various holocausts. Getting their ass kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan. Withdrawing after some suicide bombings etc etc. Nah

    Look at the french war history where a country under massive attack surrundered after months of fighting with half the forces refusing to give up and to continue fighting no matter the risk and call them cheese eating surrender monkeys. WINNER!

    Human nature. It ain't pretty.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Religion is a social group by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wrote a lot of text that has no context, does not respond to the parent's post at all, and is rather incomprehensible.

    2. Re:Religion is a social group by Phil+Urich · · Score: 1

      You, good sir, are my hero.

      --
      I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    3. Re:Religion is a social group by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      A religion is a social group

      No, a religion is a belief system. You don't have to go to church to be religious.

      It really isn't about religion

      Yes, it is. In fact my own religion, Christianity, says to beware those who go to church for the socializing, who go to be seen by other men. It says that when you pray, do it in secret.

      Sadly, most people in any church are, as you say, there to be seen by other men and don't really believe. But that's not religion and those people are not religious.

  114. This rule can obviously NOT be true by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The Torah (note the H) is a precise document, it has to be copied ACCURATELY. Part of the problem is that Hebrew is a hellish language with plenty of possibilities for errors if it is not perfectly written. Just the slightest error changes might change the meaning.

    Torah scrolls, those long rolls of parchments on two spindles, are therefor made by hand by trained scribes. This takes a long time, well over a year and makes these items very expensive. Luckily, these scrolls are ONLY needed for official occasions.

    What you are talking about here is the Torah scrolls for religious occasions. NOT the Torah itself. The document itself may be reproduced no matter how you want it. Yes, you may photocopy a Torah scroll.

    But the 'prop' used during official occasions is to be an accurate copy of the 'original' with no alterations of any kind. Be they translations, errors, updates, corrections etc etc. It is to keep the text pure. The reason why this is so important is that with hand-copying over hundred of years it is trivial to slip in errors. We all know the new testament has been edited numerous times and that entire testaments have been edited out. To keep 'jews' 'jews' you have to keep the same text.

    So, the Torah may be copied anyway you want, but the official Torah scrolls MUST, to avoid errors, be copied by exactly, and since doing this by hand was the only way, were are copied by hand by trained scribes AND checked before being certified.

    Your post is sadly rather typical of peoples understanding of religions. They hear something, that in a way is true but fail to understand the why and how.

    To translate. A zip file containing the source code for a gnu project must contain the gnu license. Conclusion, gnu code must be put into zip files.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  115. They are just a bunch of gankers :P by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    And exploiters, geez, everyone knows suicide belts are way overpowered and just have to get nerfed ASAP in a patch. But the dev's just LOVE their muslim fundementalists.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  116. RIAA now recruiting suicide bombers by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Subject says it all.

    Expect RIAA planes to head to a sky-craper near you, real soon.

    mind you, is sueing random citizens, threatening their financial security not a form of terrorism?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  117. What kind of a crap deal is that? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Actually, I can tell you what kind of "deal" the woman and her father got out of the "the rapist must marry her" mentality, because in some places (e.g., Eastern Europe) some places still worked like that as late as the 19'th and early 20'th century. Even if not legally, but the mentality that a raped woman is dishonoured and can't be married otherwise, still created that kind of situations.

    Well, let's say you're rich and have a daughter. Whoppee! Now I can rape her and you must marry her to me. It creates _incentive_ for rape. It's a perfectly good way to marry into a richer family. Probably tens of thousand of young women, got raped by the village bum who wanted to climb the social ladder that way.

    Something which would have been at most a social matter between said village bum and the rich father, gets taken out on a girl who doesn't have any fault in either.

    You also have to put it into context that the ancient times had a chronic shortage of women. Other people went to _war_ to get a wife as spoils of war. (Abominable too, mind you.) But now, with the Lord's blessing, you have a guaranteed way to just pick an unmarried girl and she's forced to be your wife. Just go rape her. If that's not incentive for rape, I don't know what is.

    And, hey, not only she got raped, but now she's also mandatorily saddled with a psychopathic husband who thought low enough of her and of his fellow human to see rape as just another tool in his arsenal. Yeah, that'll be a happy marriage.

    It's as crap a deal as saying that, hey, if I kick you in the balls, I also get to fuck you up the arse. That should soothe your pain, right?

    And the fact that the Bible sanctions that kind of a crap deal, doesn't make it some kind of mercy for someone who would have been raped anyway, it makes it yet another evil text that encouraged that rape in the first place.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  118. WTF by Shadow_139 · · Score: 1

    I think we need to work together and get EVERY game with a quote from the Bible banned as well to show how stupid there ruling is.

  119. Someone please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, someone that can kill those muslim bastards once and for all.

    And we, christians, are SO STUPID that we eat whatever those idiots send to us. We need URGENTLY the last crusade and erase these fundamentalists.

  120. So what? by MoriartyBrian · · Score: 1

    Every decent video game I've played in the past 20 years has contained lines like this. I personally have never read any Islamic religious materials, yet I have uttered similar phrases in many an online game...

    Gawd forbid that the Kilrathi are now Muslim idealists...

    --
    That computer was worked on by an egotistical maniac with a revenge demon on his shoulder!
  121. Perfect!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyway, thinking twice on this matter... it's better on this way, so I don't have any muslim shit in my home which is considered by us very, but very offensive.

  122. donning my fireproof unides: Islam, grow a pair! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Wow, could you imagine if Christians were still angry, screaming people who cut off the heads of people they disagreed with? Like half of Japanese animation and video games would have to be pulled because of misappropriated Christian iconography and themes!

    Dear Islamists: You want to interact with Western civilizations? Then learn to take your lumps. It is our tradition to grind up our sacred cows, mix them with a little bit of garlic, cracked black pepper, sea salt, throw them on the grill and make hamburgers out of 'em. The things nobody thinks should be made fun of are precisely the things that should. There's nobody more full of shit than a religious literalist fundamentalists and people like that need deflating, like lancing a boil.

    But seriously, did anybody even threaten to cut off heads here or is this just a preemptive pussification, cowering over the mere possibility that this could get turned into Dutch political cartoons?

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  123. Peace by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

    "Happy shall he be who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones"

    Psalm 137, verse 9

    The Bible. Sounds pretty peaceful.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  124. Sadness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crying over having to wait another week for LBP. You know what? Now it is scheduled for release the same day as Fallout 3... that sucks... how will I determine which to play first?

  125. This is a common sentiment. It's also false. by patio11 · · Score: 1

    Half of the 9/11 bombers had engineering degrees.

    Osama bin Laden is a billionaire heir to a construction fortune. His major monetary backers are Saudi Arabian princes.

    Of the 7/11 bombers (London bus bombings), Shehzad Tanweer's father is considered a prominent local businessman. He owns a successful fish-and-chop shop, the kind of entrepreneurial success that Americans would classify as prototypically middle class. Shehzad Tanweer himself was a college student.

    Studies of killed Hezbollah fighters describe them as marginally less poor and more educated than Lebanese men generally. http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/terrorism2.pdf Suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine are, similarly, more likely to be high school or college educated than your garden variety Palestinian.

    When you survey Palestinians, support for terrorism abstractly and blowing up Jews in particular both increase with economic and educational achievement.

    William Ayers (hey, why not throw in a white guy) was the college-educated son of the president of Commonwealth Edison (the Illinois power monopoly -- i.e. a very rich and politically connected man). He "grew up" to become a respected professor of education at the University of Chicago and something of a local celebrity who launched the career of the man likely to be the next president of the United States.

    Can you point out where the actual freaking EVIDENCE is for "poverty causes terrorism" is? The data suggest that, if anything, college education causes terrorism. (We'll ignore the religion angle for the moment because the numbers are too depressing and, hey, if you look hard enough you can usually find a token white guy to throw in.)