South Park's Episode 201 — the Expurgated Version

Yesterday we mentioned the controversy facing Matt Stone and Trey Parker after last week's South Park (episode 200) depicted Muhammad, founder of Islam, concealed in a bear suit. Today, penguinman1337 writes "Apparently, all is not well over at Comedy Central. The heavily censored version of episode 201 that aired last night has a lot of people angry, including the show's creators." From their note: "In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps."

Comments

I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Rei]

onto BitTorrent.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[OS24Ever]

You realize, the original episode that showed Mohammed before it wasn't cool to show Mohommed is on their website? here it is. Completely un-editied.

I'm expecting the 201/202 episodes to be posted the same way.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

>>We apologize that south park studios cannot stream this episode.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[PopeRatzo]

eztv FTW

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Velorium]

Uh, says now that they can't show it.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Viperlin]

was recorded off comedy central and therefore censored, you insensitive clod

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[OS24Ever]

after last weeks and before this weeks episode you could play it. That sucks ass.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Velorium]

CC trying to cover their ass even further eh?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ejtttje]

I verify, I specifically went back to re-watch this episode a few days ago.

Bunch of cowards running things at Comedy Central administration. They clearly didn't learn the lesson of the Cartoon Wars episodes, every time you give in to bullies, you only embolden them to ask for more next time. So ironic to have South Parks' own network so clearly demonstrate the head-in-the-sand behavior which is being protested.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

For those of you that are unaware, the concern among Muslims about depicting Muhammad is based on a few hadith that warn against doing so to prevent idolatry. The worry is that any depiction could become the focus of worship, and the depiction itself could take the place of what it represents.

Or, in other words, radical Muslims are fearful that a large faction of the faithful will splinter off and form a new denomination based on the worship of an episode of South Park. They're so anxious over this possibility, these groups have threatened to suborn the murder of Matt Stone & Trey Parker by dispatching roving death squads.

Don't click away to a calendar app—I assure you, it is 2010 and this is actually happening. (And I understand why some of you with mod points might choose "Funny" for this post, which is totally fine, but I promise everyone that this is as unbiased an accounting of the facts as I find myself able to give.)

By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post, I have one question for you: shouldn't your first problem, before Matt & Trey, be with the second most populous denomination of Islam, the Shi'a, who apparently have no problem with depictions of Muhammad? Is it off-base for me to ask that you sort this out amongst yourselves before requiring the non-believers to follow your religious edicts under threat of death?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it off-base for me to ask that you sort this out amongst yourselves before requiring the non-believers to follow your religious edicts under threat of death?

Yes

I agree with your post, but what does a mainstream Muslim have in common with these people? Would you ask Sunday worshipers coming out of a neighborhood church why they haven't fixed the problems with the Westbro baptist church or pro-revolutionaries?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[jonwil]

Its not like making fun of religious figures is illegal.

What are the Muslims who are offended by this going to do that the 100s of other people and groups Southpark have offended wont?

Crash a fully loaded 747 full of people into the Comedy Central HQ?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[CaptSaltyJack]

By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post

Sorry, the techno-savvy hard-line Muslim can't come to the phone right now. He's out to lunch with the gadget-hoarding Amish electrical engineer.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[TheDarAve]

Because the WBC is clearly a pack of nutjobs, and they aren't the 2nd largest group of Christians. If severoon is correct, that'd be a better comparison if it was against, say, Catholics. WBC is our religious nuts, just like the Moro Islamic Liberation Front is yours. (Nothing against them, I just love the acronym!)

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Tenek]

They're already working on the Shi'a.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[skine]

But they showed that episode in July 2001, and the attacks were in September 2001.

So South Park caused the 9/11 attacks.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[bertoelcon]

So South Park caused the 9/11 attacks.

But The Lone Gunmen showed them what a good target would be.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[CaseCrash]

Sssshhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! Don't tell anyone!

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Bunch of cowards running things at Comedy Central administration. They clearly didn't learn the lesson of the Cartoon Wars episodes, every time you give in to bullies, you only embolden them to ask for more next time.

Sounds like what's needed is for someone to threaten them unless they take the beeps out.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[cosm]

Not sure, but the geeks may already be up in digital arms. The site that issued the warning, http://www.revolutionmuslim.com/, is down. Perhaps they got a taste of nerd-rage-retaliation. Unfortunately, DDoS is nothing in comparison to they types of counter-retaliation the hardcore Jihadist tend to practice.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I agree with your post, but what does a mainstream Muslim have in common with these people?

Didja ya miss the part where he directed the question at any "techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post?"
It isn't like all sunni are hard-line or even close to it.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[maxume]

Tom Clancy used an airplane as a missile.

(but he crashed it into a joint session of congress)

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Pharmboy]

Its not like making fun of religious figures is illegal.

It is in Saudi Arabia and all other Muslim countries. Of course it isn't in America, which is what should matter but doesn't to CC.

Perhaps CC doesn't want to miss out on all the advertisers who have Muslim specific products, who might pull their ads.......

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[TubeSteak]

By the way, if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post, I have one question for you: shouldn't your first problem, before Matt & Trey, be with the second most populous denomination of Islam, the Shi'a, who apparently have no problem with depictions of Muhammad? Is it off-base for me to ask that you sort this out amongst yourselves before requiring the non-believers to follow your religious edicts under threat of death?

FYI - Shia represent 10%~15% of the ~1.5 billion muslims.
And considering that they've been killing one another since the Sunni-Shia split in the 7th Century,
I think it's fair to say that they've been busy sorting this out for the better part of 1,400 years.

That aside, your question is a rhetorical flourish and completely devoid of substance.
Do we ever tell the Pope to STFU because he disagrees with some other Christian Church 1/10th their size?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[amiga3D]

Well actually to Christians, Christ is the Son of God, not a prophet. The nice thing about Christianity though is that for the most part, with the exception of a few kooks, they're all content to leave it to God to handle unbelievers in the next life. If you don't want to believe that's fine. Either you're right, and it's all a fairy tale, or you're wrong and you'll burn in Hell. Too many Muslims seem anxious to take over Allah's job of punishing unbelievers. It's like they don't trust him to do the job properly or something.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[amiga3D]

It's not illegal in the US. There are a few countries where it'll cause you a world of hurt though.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[.tekrox]

Whoosh

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[WesternActor]

You could play it earlier today. I rewatched it this morning. By this afternoon, it was gone.

Scary times, and even scarier when people like those at Comedy Central are determined to prove their cowardice to the world.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[kg8484]

Do we ever tell the Pope to STFU because he disagrees with some other Christian Church 1/10th their size?

If it involved the Pope sending a death threat, then yes, yes we would.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Qwaniton]

Eh, their first problem has always been the Shi'a.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Imrik]

In order to do that someone will have to start a new religion based on South Park. Actually, if someone did that it might actually be illegal to censor it...

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

So...

If one were to depict Mohamed and Jesus in a short film called 2Prophets1Cup...

Then that image might be worshiped as an idol?

I am sorry, but I am going to have to call rule 34 on that.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I never knew the Muslims had a Pope, and it was some nutjob kid in America with a website and a loud mouth who's not even a priest.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Golddess]

FTL.

It's the same censored version as was on CC. I think OP was referring to an "accidental" leak of the uncensored version.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon so I don't lose all the mods I've made.

The site that issued the warning, http://www.revolutionmuslim.com/, is down.

Or is it?

I've ran that test 3 times and it reports DNS errors for everywhere except 2 places, Washington D.C. and Beijing, where it resolves (and connects) successfully.

I don't know what that means, but I just thought it was strange, I don't see a lot of DNS errors on internetsupervision.com. It looks like the site is being actively blocked, except in those 2 places (at least).

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[PopeRatzo]

I think OP was referring to an "accidental" leak of the uncensored version.

Ah, of course. Silly me.

I guess we'll just have to keep an eye on internets and hope that Trey and Matt stay clear of the zealots who have already publicly declared a fatwah against them.

Seriously, the notion of killing satirists is especially foul. I wish that the goddamn rapture would just come and take all the true believers off to whatever sodomite heaven they hope to go to, and leave the world to the sane.

Religious belief really is a blight. Even the "benign" forms are a danger to the world.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Khyber]

"Unfortunately, DDoS is nothing in comparison to they types of counter-retaliation the hardcore Jihadist tend to practice."

Who says we're not getting them framed for child pornography and statutory rape right this very moment?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[MikeFM]

If we could only give them more effective weapons maybe we could bring this issue to an end.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[MikeFM]

They should create a Roku channel. I'd pay for a membership.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, says now that they can't show it.

Fucking goddamned raghead sons of bitches.

When the NY MOMA showed the Piss Christ picture, Guiliani and a bunch of other Catholics tried to get the show shut down -- that's all.

Danish cartoonist draws a bomb-head Mohammed and the Moslem bastards have to torch the entire world, with people dying in many nations.

So where's the outrage on the part of all these pious, peaceful Mohammedand who want us to believe they're not like the bomb-throwers? Until they come out of the shadows and scream like hell and turn the motherfucking terrorists over to the law, they can all kiss my ass, after I smear bacon grease on it.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[OakDragon]

Yes, but they're brave enough to take on the Bush administration!

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Splab]

What's a muslim specific product?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[pieszynski]

As always text makes it impossible to tell if you're being ironic, but there IS an episode of southpark featuring an atheist alliance, its called Go God Go (s10e12/13) and is, shock horror, total genius.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[oamasood]

I'm a practicing Muslim ("fundamentalist" if you prefer) but most Muslims and Islamic scholars do not espouse the RevolutionMuslim kind of ideology. The statements by RevolutionMuslim are mostly for intimidation purposes and will most likely have no bearings in reality.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[oamasood]

They haven't "been killing each other since the Sunni-Shia split in the 7th Century", for most of their existence they've peacefully interacted with one another. Before the current conflict in Iraq, intermarriage between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq was common. They lived side-by-side peacefully for most of their existence; however these days people brainwashed by Western media don't know.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[bakes]

In order to do that someone will have to start a new religion based on South Park.

What about a religion based on freedom of speech?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we ever tell the Pope to STFU because he disagrees with some other Christian Church 1/10th their size?

Not for that reason exactly, but we do tell him to STFU.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AlamedaStone]

Before the current conflict in Iraq...brainwashed by Western media...

This is the part where you are supposed to provide informative links to support your contention, and set us all free of this indoctrinated delusion perpetrated by Western media that the shia/sunni conflict started prior to 2003.

Proceed.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Skreems]

The nice thing about Christianity though is that for the most part, with the exception of a few kooks, they're all content to leave it to God to handle unbelievers in the next life.

NOW they are. Try that attitude out against any time in the majority of the last 2000 years and see how far it would have gotten you.

Christianity is no more or less violent than any other religion. It's just the core of the faith has been supported by societies that have moved toward more progressive values in recent years. I suspect this is largely by chance, and nothing to do with Christianity itself.

It's much easier to find evidence to support whatever you want to believe in any religion than it is to find one definitive meaning in any of them.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Skreems]

You could play it earlier today. I rewatched it this morning. By this afternoon, it was gone.

It'll be back up in about 2 weeks. They do this with all their new episodes (available right away, blocked for a couple weeks, then available again indefinitely).

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Kell Bengal]

Halal food and prayer rugs.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mweather]

I know a gadget-hoarding amish pneumatic engineer. Converted my dremel for me.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Captain CowHeart]

They believe that a book is divine and they adore a piece of rock and they are afraid of idolatry? This is something I will never understand.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[TheLink]

> The statements by RevolutionMuslim are mostly for intimidation purposes and will most likely have no bearings in reality.

There were some dead people who would probably have liked to still be able to disagree with you.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

> Over half of the Muslim terrorists involved in bomb attacks in the asia region were electrical engineers and programmers.

While the rest of us engineers and programmers are happy to remain virgins on Slashdot.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Magic5Ball]

it might actually be illegal to censor it...

No.

Public and private broadcasters and publishers have exercised self-censorship on religious or other grounds for as long as independent media have existed. To legislatively forbid broadcasters and publishers from exercising editorial control over their content would entitle any entity to exercise their speech at another's expense.

It would not be generally desirable for me to be able to force all broadcasters and publishers to carry my message that "buy my used cars, time shares, and discount penis enlargement creams because the gods are offended by the ill-thought arguments by people named Imrik and their friends" etc. for the only reason that I namedropped a religious element into my speech.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[houghi]

What about a religion based on freedom of speech?

If only Scientology were a religion and not a cult, they could help for sure.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[jimicus]

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you live in the middle of the fucking desert a couple of thousand years ago.

You are (by accident of birth) quite high in your society's hierarchy - but a lot of things that we take for granted these days simply don't exist in the middle of this fucking desert.

There's no police force.

There's no farm subsidies (though there are farmers, it's a hard life being a farmer in the middle of a fucking desert).

The last couple of years have been tough - there's virtually no water (though the people in the next country have a number of rivers...). As a consequence, many of your people are starving.

There may or may not be such a thing as conscription, but keeping morale up in your army is damn hard. You can barely feed them, FFS.

There is precious little that would be recognised as a legal system two thousand years hence.

There's no international aid - it's every man for himself.

There's little education - those who aren't from a wealthy background (which 99% of your countrymen aren't) don't necessarily understand exactly how bad things are or how best to improve them.

What your people need to survive is some better farmland. And you know exactly what you need to get it - water. Easiest way to get this is to re-settle as many people as you can next to the neighbour's river. Your neighbour is likely to object, however, so you'll have to take it by force. How on Earth do persuade thousands of people to take up arms and invade your neighbour?

Well, like most leaders you're fundamentally a politician. Two thousand years from now you'd spin your people some line about how this neighbouring country has big scary weapons, but that doesn't work so well here because nuclear weapons aren't going to be invented for some time.

The most powerful thing you have available is your own local myths and legends - which include legends about how the world was created by an all-powerful being. Most of your people believe pretty firmly in them. So you spin them a line about how this all-powerful being has promised them the world - on condition they take on any "non-believers". And by an amazing coincidence, there's a whole bunch of non-believers in the next country.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Pecisk]

Well, not exactly. Christianity as itself is staunch denier of killing anyone, it's a sin, pure and simple. However, book is one thing and people with intent are other. Let's say, "you shall not kill" haven't stopped "true" Christians to kill their brothers, to kill nonbelievers, never mind about people who just look or act strange or could be possibly truly inspired by God. And all the time it was claimed that it was done "in the name of God". Go figure. Human nature I guess.

Let's be honest - reason why Christianity is not so violent anymore is that Western society, while still having it's problems, have painfully learned true nature of human being and trying to balance it. That's why we don't have Sharia law, but we have courts. That's why we don't practice blood revenge, but try to work it out with laws. It doesn't work always, but it is not a complete mess either.

Muslims are like Christians in middle ages - they believe their own words and feel they are justified to do anything they want to. What scares me more that they even don't have to explain themselves - if their priest says so, they should carry out order,

In fact, as for someone who has found true reasons behind Christianity it's painful to watch that people try to fit their practical mindsets into something they don't and maybe even don't want to understand. Christianity is about spirituality, but in fact all I see is just using those legend frameworks for something else. Again, human nature I guess.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[hany]

You mean Gingers or Barbara Streisand?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Splab]

Really?
Halal is pretty much defacto way of slaughtering these days (europe at least), turns out less stress on the cattle (=better meat) and as a bonus you got the muslim minority as customers. Sure as hell aint muslim, but I buy lots of halal, only meat i buy that isn't halal is bacon.

And if CC is going to lose a lot of advertisement over lag of prayer rug commercials, they are doing something seriously wrong...

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[lpq]

Don't forget the quote of Christian Crusaders ... "Kill them and all and let God sort them out"...

Christians do kill, they do bomb clinics, they do blow up buildings in Oklahoma -- just that most of them are not so included, but they organized well from all states in the US to overwhelm the electorate in the last California election to remove the rights of same sex people to marry.

Monotheism is inherently antithetical to human life, as human life needs freedom and monotheism says there's only one way -- and ultimate it's followers enforce their beliefs on others. Until people realize that one-wayism is a threat to everyone, it will remain an insidious problem.

 

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[shadowknot]

Absolutely. Even the "nice" christians somehow find it in their heart to hate homosexuals, and their public stance against their civil rights is no less ugly because it's done with a smug smile.

If you're a religious believer, you've already established yourself as partially insane

It's interesting to me how you manage to both decry tolerance and display an utter lack of it so concisely in one post. Bravo biggot.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AlXtreme]

NOW they are. Try that attitude out against any time in the majority of the last 2000 years and see how far it would have gotten you.

But we don't live in 1200 AD, we live in the present. At the moment Christianity is much less violent than Islam: it's that simple.

Yes, Christianity did terrible things in the past but currently similar things are being done by Muslims. IMHO it is our ethical duty to stop religious insanity in the present, regardless of the past.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[someone1234]

Yeah, who wouldn't like ... a MILF.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[BoberFett]

If the hijackers had done that instead of crashing it into a building full of civilians, I think a lot of us would have thanked them.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[dominious]

Too many Muslims seem anxious to take over Allah's job of punishing unbelievers. It's like they don't trust him to do the job properly or something.

no they believe it's their job to do so because they are serving Allah. Some Muslim can explain better?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Nyder]

For those of you that are unaware, the concern among Muslims about depicting Muhammad is based on a few hadith that warn against doing so to prevent idolatry. The worry is that any depiction could become the focus of worship, and the depiction itself could take the place of what it represents.

Or, in other words,...

... that these religions attract stupid people, and they know they'll believe/follow anything they hear?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Nyder]

...
Do we ever tell the Pope to STFU because he disagrees with some other Christian Church 1/10th their size?

Give me the chance and I will. I'll tell him to STFU just because, I don't need a reason to.

Whats he going to do? Send a priest to sodomize me?

Oh, wait, not sure I want to risk that...

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[henrik.falk]

I found the information that some Muslims are fine with pictures of Mohamed quite substantial. Do we ever listen to the pope? I don't think that we need to since, he rarely issues death threats.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[jandersen]

Or, in other words, radical Muslims are fearful that a large faction of the faithful will splinter off and form a new denomination based on the worship of an episode of South Park.

Don't be an idiot. You know perfectly well that you are just trying to be provocative - in effect choosing to push away any possible mediation in the very real conflict behind it all. This suggests that you are not going to be a productive participant in the discussion; you just want to spread shit and stir trouble from the safety of your desktop.

Of course we shouldn't let a small minority of extremists tell the majority what to do or how to do it; but then, why do you allow mindless tossers like Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson airtime, where they can twist the minds of people, largely unchallenged? But the way to a peaceful world goes through the lands of compromise, respect and mutual understanding; people - on both sides - who are unwilling to go that way, won't reach that goal.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[daniorerio]

First of all it speaks for itself that you reacted AC. Second, as far as I know, nobody is forcing churches to perform same sex marriages, what's being prevented are same sex marriages conducted by city-hall. It is also not being the norm to be a vegetarian, why not put a ban on that too? I mean, allowing people not to eat meat is bound to escalate to cannibalism and what not...

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Christianity is no more or less violent than any other religion.

This rings false to me. It seems you're implying that the violence level of "any other religion" is well-defined, as in, every other religion is more or less as violent as each other. I've never seen, for example, militant Buddhists. Well, perhaps a Buddhist (or someone claiming to be one) who is militant about something else, but no-one who spreads Buddhism by force.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[RichiH]

I hope you are Christian, because I am about to point out that a _lot_ more people were killed in Jesus' name than in Mohamed's.
I also hope you are part of any random ethnic group, because _all_ of them have killed others at some point.

What, that was not _your_ fault? So what, I still blame you :D

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[lpq]

Where does this "right" come from?

From the Creator. The creator who creates love in peoples hearts. Why should the institutions and creations of man take precedence over the creators work? Same sex relationships are seen throughout nature. Yet in man, institutions that have turned their face away from God call this "sinful". It is those institutions that violate the sanctity of life and love in God's eyes.

It is a man-made "church" that proclaims right and wrong and claims to speak for God -- yet their words go against the habits of creatures on this earth -- it pretty obvious that they are "unnatural" -- a perversion of the natural order God established. Let each be attracted to who they will and be in alignment with God's blessings.

If it's politically correct to say it or not the fact remains that homosexuality differs from the norm and is, biologically speaking, of no use to furthering the human species.

It doesn't need to be furthered -- it needs to be nurtured. Men on the make ain't doing alot of nuturing any time I've seen. Once married, maybe, Male couples can nuture as well -- when love flourishes -- as it does among female couples. IT's not as easy for male couples but it's relatively easy for for female couples to reproduce -- and with science, with each others genes!
But that's not really the point of love. It's about loving and giving to another, love without an agenda -- a type of love that heterosexual couples find it harder to experience.

It is an inherrently selfish pursuit that leaves the notion of service to your fellow man (make jokes about that if you like!) completely out of the picture.

Not having children and devoting your life to science and art is selfish? Not having children is selfish? How about men who have to spread their seed into an over populated world who disproportionally will be the ones to leave their partner to raise a child alone? Who's selfish here? Statistically, it's the men who walk. You can be sure that gay couples won't be so selfish as to use impregnation as a way of enslavement or blithely leave behind single parents or children on the street.
Statistics and reality don't backup your claims of selfishness. Caring first for themselves and their partners is doing the earth alot more good than those who are polluting the world with more uncared for and uncherished children (not that all are, but a sizable percentage of your supposedly "not selfish" net parents will produce such a result).

Normalization of homosexuality is foolish as it is (mathematically speaking) not normal.
Mathematically speaking, left handers are not normal. Should we pass laws to stop them from marrying? They might pass on left handed genes...

If you think about it -- if gays do marry, they will be less likely to reproduce than their het counterparts, and genetically, they won't contribute as much to the gene pool -- but if honored and accepted into society, they will help raise the standard of living for today. Since they have no children of their own -- many make great workers in child care -- or would if it wasn't for anti-gay propaganda. By any measure -- absolute or per-capital, more heterosexual males are abusers of children than any other group. NOT gay men. And lesbians? I've heard of a few freak incidents of a woman with lesbian inclinations going over the edge, but those I've who like to be around children are very caring and make ideal child care workers -- they don't have to go home to take care of their own.

Opening recognition for gay couples leaves the floodgates open for polygimous groups and other non-traditional spousal units to get their "rights" recognized.

And??

"It takes a village to raise a child" used to be common sense. Children were better off when groups of adults were around to interact with them. In today's society, having only 2 adults, both of whom are

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[chrb]

But we don't live in 1200 AD, we live in the present.

And in the present, the National Liberation Front of Tripura is one of the most active terrorist groups in the world, and has used gunpoint conversions to convert entire towns to Christianity. The Lord's Resistance Army have been fighting for decades for the establishment of a Christian state in Uganda. The face that there are Christians in the military shows that Christianity itself does not exclude the possibility of engaging in violent activity.

Yes, Christianity did terrible things in the past but currently similar things are being done by Muslims

Currently similar things are being done by people of all religions. Christianity does not get a free pass. See Wikipedia Christian Violence. (link to random old version of article since any article on religious violence is an editwar and most of the content appears to be missing atm).

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[God'sDuck]

Christians do have the advantage in the "whose religion is inherently violent" mudslinging match that nobody was killed in Jesus name while Jesus was alive, or while any of his students were alive, or their students, or their students, or their students, or their students. It took several HUNDRED YEARS for people to start killing in Jesus name. Why? Because Jesus made it very clear you were not supposed to kill in his name, even to the point of literally turning your other cheek to somebody who was slapping you in the face. It was not until Christianity became the dominant regional religion and rulers began looking for justifications for political wars and capital punishment that killings began, and then continued in force for ~1300 years, largely until the enlightenment pulled out a lot of dusty verses.
 
Muhammad, on the other hand, personally led the Muslim armies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Beginning_of_armed_conflict

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mapkinase]

"if you happen to be a techno-savvy hard-line Muslim reading this post"

Here you go (I am not sure what techno-savviness has anything to do with it, though).

There are two moments in today controversies in depicting the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam:

1. As you noted, the depiction is not allowed in Islam, and answering your question about Shia, their scholars and leaders are not considered Muslims by majority of Sunni scholars, and ordinary Shia folks are considered ignorant deviant Muslims at best.

2. Derogation of the Prophet, which was planned in the recent SP episode. That's a different and far more serious offense with which Muslims are obligated to deal very seriously.

The first point is irrelevant here in this context.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[anarche]

I'm not a muslim, but I can speak on behalf of them based on what I see on my college campus.

I'm sorry, but on what basis can you speak for Muslims? based on "what [you] see"

What the hell do they teach you in that "college"; Stereotyping 101, How To Assume You Are Right With No Qualifications 233?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[cowboy76Spain]

Not "give"; "sell"

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Dog-Cow]

Throughout history, same-sex couplings have existed, but at no time were they considered a marriage. People today just want to redefine a term with a long-standing meaning to get money from their fellow citizens.

It is perfectly natural to keep the legal definition of marriage as a coupling between 2 adults that may lead to a biological family. There is no benefit to society to recognize anything else.

And it's completely illogical to assume that someone who does not eat animal (non-human) meat would suddenly gain a taste for human. But this kind of stupidly-illogical blather is expected from idiots like you.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Thing 1]

Their airtime does not directly challenge one's ability to breathe. In fact, their airtime is important in a society that values freedom of speech. Having to change one's creative output on the basis of death threats, though, is not useful to society.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[DWRECK18]

IMHO religious extremeist exist within all religions, this does not exclude any one, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist I'm sure, any of them. Before people can get on the case of oh this religion kills in the name of their God more than this one realize that in all religions there are extremeist that believe their religion is superior. Yes I am a Christian and there is NOWHERE in the Bible where it says it is right to kill someone else in Gods name. It is a SIN and a horrible sin at that. Muslims are the same way as far as I can tell, it is not right to kill though the extremeists have interepreted their book in such away that it is OK to kill for Allah, Just as the Christians did on a massive scale during the Crusades. Before we judge someone because of what they believe, lets look at ourselves first. I for one would not kill someone just because they do not believe in my God, for it is not my place to judge, though to defend my family and my life I would commit that sin and for only that reason. We all have our differences yet we coexist because we are human and have intelligence and can think. It is the ones that believe they are above everyone that ruin the true belief of religion and what it means, as well as race, it is the acts of a few that cause others to be prejudice against the majority.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[YourExperiment]

What about a religion based on freedom of speech?

Any world view that considers humans to be of primary importance should suffice. If only we had a name for such a moral philosophy.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[master_p]

Let's also not forget the late Roman Empire - early Byzantium, when Christianity became the defacto religion. They hunted and killed everything Hellenic/Roman, due to being considered heretic.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[jonadab]

> for most of their existence they've peacefully interacted with one another

On the one hand, the Middle East has always been a war zone as far back as we know anything about it. There has perpetually been a conflict of some sort going on there; it's just been a question of what the two sides were. Elam versus Persia, Media versus Persia, Elam versus Babylon, Assyria versus Egypt, Assyria versus Babylon, Babylon versus Egypt, Medo-Persia versus Babylon, ... the only times the Middle Eastern people weren't fighting amongst themselves were when they were busy opposing or being dominated by sundry external powers (notably Alexandrian Greece, the Roman Caesars, the Mongol Khans, and the colonial powers of Western Europe).

But you're right up to a point: the conflict certainly hasn't always been Sunni versus Shia. Relations between them have always been tense, and there have been numerous wars between them over the centuries, but they also have often been united against various common enemies.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[DJRumpy]

I suspect Christianity's new found 'peaceful' resolution came about when governments told them to mind their own business. When they lost the power to sway law in the US and Europe, they in turn had to comply with a slew of new restrictions to what they could and couldn't do. Agree with the parent. Christianity was an extreme force for violence, and could be again. Imagine if religion was allowed to blend with Law in the U.S. Now imagine the more radical folks who tend to push those agenda and the 'ideals' they strive for. I could definitely see that evoking violence, either through resistance or compliance.

In the middle east, Religion and Law or intermixed freely. Look at the violence created by such a mix.

If there is one thing that I think absolutely made things better in the US was a Separation of Church and State.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AlamedaStone]

I'm a practicing Muslim ("fundamentalist" if you prefer) but most Muslims and Islamic scholars do not espouse the RevolutionMuslim kind of ideology.

The statements by RevolutionMuslim are mostly for intimidation purposes and will most likely have no bearings in reality.

I know many devout Christians who would be deeply offended to be called fundamentalists. I know a few hyper-devout Christians who are self-described fundamentalists.

My only point is, please don't start calling yourself a fundamentalist if you aren't. Those people are deranged and dangerous. There are plenty of people towards the center of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian belief system who are firm believers and practitioners that are not "fundamentalists".

Of course, I think you're all a little crazy for being Theists, but at least you guys are *actively* trying to hurt people. (I kid, I kid...)

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Lachlan Hunt]

Already have it in my utorrent queue!

I think GP was referring to the uncensored version leaking, which it hasn't yet, and which I'm sure you don't have in your queue. Of course, the aired version would have hit the torrent sites within hours.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mcgrew]

Do we ever tell the Pope to STFU because he disagrees with some other Christian Church 1/10th their size?

The Catholics and Lutherans aren't killing each other, and the Catholics and Lutherans aren't telling each other to STFU. Plus, Muhammed's meassage was different than Jesus', whose message was forgiveness, "love your enemies" and "do good to those who do you wrong", and don't judge people.

Apples and oranges (or Apples and Dells).

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Richard_at_work]

The Christian law is 'thou shalt not murder', not 'thou shalt not kill' - and yes, there is a distinction.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[sir lox elroy]

That the way it always goes with humans it seems. They say they are tolerant, but most of the are a biggot on some level.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[sayno2quat]

Actually, the commandment is to not murder. One is allowed to kill in certain instances, such as war.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[sir lox elroy]

So I take it you have no problem with the police profiling people. As, that is exactly what you said at the end of your comment. "I'm saying the rest of us have the right to identify you as socially suspect" Or is it just that you support bigotry against Christians? Either way, I feel sorry for you.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[RichiH]

Somehow, I doubt this matters to the poor sod dying for the penis-wagging of a random religion.

The moral might be that people will pervert anything, given a motive and chance.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[NiteShaed]

Scary times, and even scarier when people like those at Comedy Central are determined to prove their cowardice to the world.

I'm not sure that's fair. These people aren't self-proclaimed freedom-fighters, they're people who want to broadcast cartoons, stand-up comedy and puppets who tell fart jokes. Expecting them to put their lives on the line is a little much. It's no more reasonable for us to expect them to take that risk than it would be for me to tell you that you should start a website called "PicturesOfMohammad.com". If you wanted to do something like that, fine, great even, but I wouldn't fault you for not wanting to risk having your car explode the next time you try to start it just because it'd prove a point.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[God'sDuck]

The moral might be that people will pervert anything, given a motive and chance.

Could not agree with you more!

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Golddess]

I don't know if this was recent, but it's also not currently available on Amazon's or Netflix's VOD service, or from iTunes.

Makes me want to go out and buy the season 5 DVD set before they recall those and release a "clean" box set without that episode.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[morgauxo]

He wasn't addressing mainstream Muslims. He was addressing "techno-savvy hard-line Muslim[s]".

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[morgauxo]

Better take care of that! Otherwise when a terrorist dies he might get you and 9 of your friends!

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[TheLink]

Given what I know from history (the Muslims did kill very many in India[1], and they did attack Europe first) I would like to see some citations- what makes you so certain of your claim?

After all, it's not as easy to justify killing others when you follow Jesus than when you follow Muhammad (which the Sunnis try to do). This is not a "True Scotsman" argument, just look at the reported actions of both.

And if you follow Engel and Marx it is quite easy to justify killing - since the Communist Manifesto promotes violence with stuff like:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution."

Mao certainly killed very very many with his "forcible overthrows".

[1] Yes I'm aware that the bit in the Quran that goes "fight the polytheists/Pagans all together" also has the bit "as they fight you all together;", but someone should have told the Muslims that too ;).

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Toze]

Christianity is no more or less violent than any other religion.

Oh, well, that explains recent art like "Piss Pope" and "Chocolate Jesus." And abortion clinics. And Dawkins having a death sentence pronounced on him by the Archbishop of Canterbury. People are constantly terrified that some Christian might explode them if they say bad things. Good thing you cleared that up.

I think maybe you meant to say that Christianity has been as violent as any other religion, in which case, sure. But for people alive today, it seems much less violent than some other options. This is like whining that Germany is "no more or less racist than any other nation" when talking about Rwanda because, you know, the Germans had a period of being complete dicks. Sure, past actions impact the present, but that doesn't mean there's a moral equivalence in the current situation.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[GungaDan]

Scott Roeder sure is less violent than Yusuf Islam (nee Cat Stevens), isn't he?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Toze]

"The" quote of the crusaders was "Deus vult," "God wills it." The quote you're referring to started in the Albigensian Crusade, about 100 years into the crusading period.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[SandFrog]

At least not lately...

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Toze]

Like Canada.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mcgrew]

Try that attitude out against any time in the majority of the last 2000 years and see how far it would have gotten you.

Violent Christians aren't following Christ's teachings; religious wars aren't about religion, they're about land, money, and personal power -- the antithesis of what Christianity is about. The people behind these wars are the "wolves in sheep's clothing" Christ warned about (Pat Robertson is one of those wolves who worships money and power and pretends to worship God, as have some Popes been).

It's much easier to find evidence to support whatever you want to believe in any religion than it is to find one definitive meaning in any of them.

I don't know about other religions, but with Christianity it's easy -- get a "red letter edition" of the Bible and ignore everything that isn't written in red ink. The black ink is just the backstory, the message and teaching is in red.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[wiredlogic]

Well actually to Christians, Christ is the Son of God, not a prophet.

Well actually that's just the specific view of Western Christianity. The Nestorians, Assyrians, and the Copts believe that Christ was a normal human who was touched by God to be his prophet.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[morgauxo]

When has a US church been mandated to perform any ceremony, homosexual, heterosexual or otherwise?? I know pastors who will not marry two heterosexual people with different beliefs. And this is perfectly fine, it's his right not to, they can go elsewhere! What does it mean to force a church to recognize a non-traditional pairing? Making such a marriage legal does not force any church to recognize or condone it. Pastors, priests, etc... will still be able to preach their beliefs as much as they want. That is the first amendment! What I would hope they would do is keep it to preaching about homosexuality in general and not go harass specific individuals Westbro Baptist style. Of course, if they do then anyone present will reject whatever they have to say guaranteed b/c they will all look like asses. Making a form of marriage legal or illegal is about marriage law and recognition of marriage within the secular government. It does not involve churches in any way. It also does not affect heterosexual marriages and families. Not unless one partner is actually gay and hiding it but is more tempted to come out when gay marriage is legal. In such a case that marriage has serious problems anyway which need to be dealt with. What such law does affect is taxes and health care. It means homosexual couples cannot file joint tax returns. In many companies it means they cannot get health care for their partners. In others however it actually makes getting health care easier. I knew a guy in a place I used to work who went through 3 partners in a year. Each time he simply went to HR and got his new boyfriend health benefits. Later, after I left that job I had to pay out of pocket even though I was engaged to my current wife who still works at that company. I couldn't get any insurance until it was official. I suppose it's 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other. I know the guy from my old job is happy to see gay marriage illegal b/c of this. On the other hand, in a less progressive company it could mean not being able to afford medicine. If, (speaking hypothetically)... homosexuality is a sin does it really mean homosexuals shouldn't get insurance? Does it mean they should pay higher taxes? How many heterosexuals don't just have some other habitual sin?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[morgauxo]

Of what benefit today is a couple that does produce offspring? Is that what marriage is about? Maybe then people who keep popping out kids while living off welfare shouldn't be allowed to marry either...

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Nursie]

I fail to see the intolerance there.

Sure, there's an insult, but he's not calling for them to be banned/beheaded/banished or anything.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[morgauxo]

If you truly are an ex-Muslim perhaps you can enlighten us by expanding upon your reasoning rather than just relying on a repeated expletive.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Nursie]

No true Scotsman eh?

"The black ink is just the backstory, the message and teaching is in red."

LOL.

So someone has sat down and decided this? They got to decide what are the real teachings and rules and what aren't?

Face it, like most religious people, you're picking and choosing which bits you think apply to you based on your own values. You don't follow the religion, you fit it around yourself.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[morgauxo]

I think he has a poor vocabulary and means 'about', not 'on behalf'. I hope he isn't an English major.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Xyrus]

Come with me brother, and I shall enlighten you to the ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He shall caress you with his noodley appendage, and annoint thee with the sauce from his meaty balls. Ramen.

~X~

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[morgauxo]

nay! We've been at that for years already and what has it gained us?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Pecisk]

Really, if there is distinction, I would like to hear one.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[jimbolauski]

Sounds like what's needed is for someone to threaten them unless they take the beeps out.

Only Muslims are allowed to call for violence when the views contrast with their religion, since it's in the koran it's part of their religion and they have a right to practice their religion.
-So first a religion must be created and accepted as an official religion that shouldn't be too hard Scientology did it.
-When creating the religion state in there that it is OK to kill people if they don't believe what you do and that you will be rewarded in the afterlife for doing so.
-Then blow up buildings and bomb public areas in the name of the religion.
-Finally you will be able to threaten media outlets by saying that the reality is that if you don't do what we want you might end up dead but it's not a threat and post addresses and family photos of the people you are trying to "convince".
-After that get a few people to claim that people are prejudice about the religion and that the religion has been corrupted by a few people and that their views do not reflect all followers of the religion even though the actions of the few radicals are never denounced.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Skreems]

I'm saying the presence or absence of violence is a factor of the society and people that promote the religion, rather than something inherent in the religion itself.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[SandFrog]

You don't need to go that far back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Ustase#Role_of_the_Vatican/
The "good" behavior of the Vatican, just like most institutions
is mostly based on what they believe they can get away with.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[hesiod]

He's attempting to redefine "tolerance" as "loving acceptance", which is all too common these days.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Camel Pilot]

The nice thing about Christianity though is that for the most part, with the exception of a few kooks, they're all content to leave it to God to handle unbelievers in the next life. If you don't want to believe that's fine. Either you're right, and it's all a fairy tale, or you're wrong and you'll burn in Hell.

400 years ago Christians killed others for less cause.

Take John Calvin one of the founding fathers of Protestantism who had a man burned at the stake because he didn't believe in the trinity.

Or G. Bruno who was also burned at the stake for crimes such as denying the virginity of Mary and believing in plurality of worlds (AKA Galaxies) - the Catholic Church has apologized to Galileo but not Bruno - it is a crying shame.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Conchobair]

I don't think you cna pin it on just Monotheism. I think it's human nature to attack people with different belief systems than yourself. As long as people have differing ideas we will attack each other claming that it is the one true way to think right. The Romans did it to the Monotheists as well. Korea fought a war over differnce in idealogy that was not related to relgion as well.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mapkinase]

GP asked a question to the representative of a quite narrow group (here at /.) to which I honestly answered. How's that being qualified as troll?

If that is not moderation abuse, then I do not know what is.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[hesiod]

Imagine if religion was allowed to blend with Law in the U.S. Now imagine the more radical folks who tend to push those agenda and the 'ideals' they strive for.

Basically, imagine the Republicans are in charge of everything.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Eli Gottlieb]

Nature is not God. Get your head out of the feminist/homosexual theory books and look at the real world.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mweather]

Into a pneumatic dremel. It runs off my air compressor and is like 10x more powerful. You should see the Amish guy's blender. It can blend a brick.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[JAlexoi]

Let's add tho that "any monotheistic religion". Polytheistic religions have a tendency not to care about other gods.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Lemmy Caution]

Um, Europe has been a war zone for most of its history, too. The EU is - what - 30-some years old? And we still had that conflict in Serbia/Kosovo, the Basque autonomy movement, and the IRA. The only time you get peace is when you have a big, stable state that keeps the peace, and the Middle East has had centuries in which it had those.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[JAlexoi]

Wait! Are you talking about the Jews? Or are you talking about how Islam got started?
Yes, both Judaism and Islam are religions that were initiated by the need for laws. Christianity is more of a philosophical movement, than a religion like Judaism.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[hesiod]

So someone has sat down and decided this?

Not someone, a large group of scholars did. And it's not to point out what parts are good and which are negotiable -- the red parts are supposed to highlight things spoken by Jesus himself. Not necessarily exact quotes, but ideas that came directly from him.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mcgrew]

So someone has sat down and decided this?

Yes, I did. It only applies to me and my own beliefs; I'm not going to try to argue about it, just mention it. It either makes sense to you or it doesn't.

Face it, like most religious people, you're picking and choosing which bits you think apply to you based on your own values.

The bits I think apply are the bits that Jesus taught, not other men. The religion (mine anyway) revolves around what Jesus taught, not the disciples. It's easy to be a Christian, but damned hard to follow Christ's teachings (and I don't always succeed).

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[hesiod]

I don't recall that caveat. Was that on the third, smaller tablet with all the footnotes and the bibliography?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[(H)elix1]

Christians do have the advantage in the "whose religion is inherently violent" mudslinging match that nobody was killed in Jesus name while Jesus was alive, or while any of his students were alive, or their students, or their students, or their students, or their students.

http://bible.cc/john/18-10.htm

I'm pretty sure Peter was going for a head shot, and just got the ear. (A bit of context, this is the same Simon Peter that was one of the inner circle of followers - heck, the first Pope, if you will. Peter took a swipe at the High Priest's servant as they came to arrest Jesus, kicking off the process. While he might have been a lousy shot, the intent was sure as heck there, followed by explicit instructions to put the sword away.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[JAlexoi]

Even then, there is a lot of instances of murder "in the name of God".

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[JAlexoi]

If it's politically correct to say it or not the fact remains that homosexuality differs from the norm and is, biologically speaking, of no use to furthering the human species

It's also not the biological norm to have intercourse not for reproduction(i.e should we outlaw condoms, just because it's not "natural"). But bonobos and dolphins engage in recreational sex a lot.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[tehcyder]

I don't think there's any lack of mutual hatred between Sunni and Shia Muslims already.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[emudoug42]

A well thought out article, though I'm not sure about your claim that polygamy creates a less warlike mentality. I've heard quite the opposite argued, in fact, that widespread polygamy makes prospective mates less common for those who have less available to offer, which leads to frustration and violence. Of course, this is just an argument I've heard, [citation needed].

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[tehcyder]

Sorry, the techno-savvy hard-line Muslim can't come to the phone right now. He's out to lunch with the gadget-hoarding Amish electrical engineer.

It's a dangerous and absurd assumption that fanatical religious terrorists (Muslim or otherwise) can't be "techno-savvy." They don't all live in fucking caves you know.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[The Wild Norseman]

I know a gadget-hoarding amish pneumatic engineer. Converted my dremel for me.

Dude.. into what?

Into an ox-drawn plow, naturally.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Khisanth Magus]

*looks at prop8 in california, all other anti-gay legislation, anti-abortion laws* And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Christians have been trying to push their morals and beliefs down the throats of everyone in the US for centuries.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I think you're missing my point. It's not so easy to call a religion "violent", let alone equating their violence based on one parameter. I mean, I don't see why a polytheistic religion would be any less inclined to claim knowledge of all gods than a monotheistic religion.

I'm not even convinced that Christianity is that violent. The kooks are always the ones who get the most publicity, but there really are a shitload of Christians. It really is only an insignificant proportion that are violent. A proportion that, most likely, wouldn't be out of proportion with the population in total.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[thebagel]

People today just want to redefine a term with a long-standing meaning to get money from their fellow citizens.

You mean money and benefits that other married couples already get, right? But of course, in the case of heterosexual couples, it's not just about the money - that would be morally wrong. Am I right? Howabout interracial marriages? That's not a norm, so should we ban that, too? Clearly

There is no benefit to society to recognize anything else.

Except that plenty of same-sex couples would love to adopt and raise children. Adopting children improves our society by providing them with a place to live, love, and grow. But that doesn't benefit us at all, I guess.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Khisanth Magus]

I got a vasectomy shortly after I got married. Should our marriage be invalidated because there is no way for it to lead to a biological family?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Limburgher]

There are two specific and distinct words for kill and murder in Hebrew, and the latter is in the text. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments#Killing_or_murder

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[DJRumpy]

I agree. Such legislature has polarized the nation and caused outright hatred on both sides. Prop 8 should have never been put into law. It's a shame that they wrote such discrimination into the books.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[CaptSaltyJack]

May I remind you of the Iranian cleric who blamed earthquakes on promiscuous women. Many of these idiots live in the dark ages, at least mentally.

Besides, it was a joke! You know, humor? Sarcasm? Of course fanatical religious terrorists can be tech-savvy.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[jimicus]

Actually, I'm talking about religion in general terms.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Neoprofin]

I've been saying this since the Danish cartoon incidents caused such a flurry of self censorship. It's the duty of ever free speech and cultural openness loving American to demand that this episode be available. The only solution to those who say by threat of force that they are above mockery is to mock them ten fold more brutally until they learn unquestionably criticism and humor are a fact of life and no amount of crazy can stop them.

Of course South Park is already winning this one. They're not even mocking the religion, only the moronic nature of some of it's followers. The moderate Muslim community should thank them for this opportunity (which I believe they are missing) to tell the rest of the world "we can take a joke just like everyone else!"

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AndersOSU]

I don't think techno-savy hard-line muslim is any more a contradiction in terms than wealthy hard-line evangelical christian. From what I've read, the internet is a pretty fertile recruiting ground for islamic radicals.

Now as far as the "reading this post part." I dunno, maybe the anti-communist propaganda we fed them when we were still friends makes them think that they can get some of the randroids who dwell here to come over...

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[jonadab]

> Um, Europe has been a war zone for most of its history, too.

Granted.

> The only time you get peace is when you have a big, stable state that keeps the peace,

Well, either that or Mutually Assured Destruction. Which is basically the same thing.

> and the Middle East has had centuries in which it had those.

Always externally imposed. No state local to the region has yet been able to manage it, unless you count the Ottomans as local (but they were pretty much at war on two fronts for pretty much their entire existence) or the Achaemenids (a relatively decent government as totalitarian empires go, but they were at war with Greece almost as soon as they finished conquering Babylon). The longest and most peaceful period of peace in the Middle East to date is the Pax Romana, and there were frequent uprisings even then.

Of course, it is arguable that this is because none of the governments local to the Middle East has yet become quite large enough to manage a prolonged and stable peace. Not for lack of trying (several of the Caliphates attempted to expand beyond the region, for instance, as did Parthia and several of the Egyptian dynasties) but just because history didn't quite work out that way.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ubermiester]

I'll ignore the "everybody does equally bad things" nonsense for now, and address your rather odd take on monotheism.

Monotheism is inherently antithetical to human life, as human life needs freedom and monotheism says there's only one way

First of all, you're saying that you know for a fact that the world works in such and such a way, and complain that a different belief system has got it all wrong. Isn't that a circular argument? And, isn't that the basis for all inter-theological fights? "No, no, you've got it all wrong. It's like this..."

And second, you're claim that "monotheism says there's only one way" is absolute nonsense. What way is that exactly? The way of a particular sect? The way of a particular time and place? There are as many "ways" as there are people. It's all about interpretation. Sometimes a particular interpretation gains enough followers that it takes on the force of the mob, but most people go about their business and deal with one another based on common sense.

Monotheism is about seeing the world as a single entity without the capricious nature of "godheads" or "mother earth". Every scrap of scientific knowledge we have points to a single monolithic universe (putting aside it's scale and theoretical "parallel-ness"). People simply recognized the power of such a concept before having even a notion of "proof" as we currently understand it. It gave people a way to simplify the world so they could get their increasingly sophisticated intellectual heads around it. Its a brilliant leap of understanding that has absolutely nothing to do with a given individual's claims about what that single entity wants exactly. Moses claimed God wanted "his people" set free. Jesus claimed God wanted everyone to go to heaven (among other things). Mohammad claimed God wanted people to submit to His will (the word Islam means roughly "submission"). Siddhartha (founder of Buddhism), claimed that there was no god, but that the universe was an indifferent but all-powerful singular thing. All of them (as well as many others) believed in a single power controlling everything everywhere, but what that single power actually "wants" various radically between them.

Monotheism is NOT a religion. It is a category of belief systems that includes our most modern understanding of the universe. We just don't call it god anymore. If you don't believe me, consider the remarkable similarity between the average creation story "god did XYZ and the world was born", to the creation story a physicist will tell you, "the singularity did XYZ and the universe was born". (There are many other 1=1 correlations if you bother to look).

I understand and share your feelings about institutionalized cults, but do not confuse the concept with it's application.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Lillesvin]

Here's my take on a distinction (based on my memory of a semantics course):

kill: to cause something to become dead
murder: to intentionally cause something to become dead

So the keyword is: intent.

This is based on how the words are actually used in the language, it may not agree 100% with dictionary definitions. You can accidentally kill someone, while it sounds odd to accidentally murder someone.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[DavidTC]

On top of that, this entire thing is something only Muslims are prohibited from doing.

Believe it or not, and Christians often have trouble doing so because they've never really had this situation, Islamic law actually has the specific possibility of operating over non-Muslims.

There are specific parts of the law everyone has to follow, and specific parts that only Muslims have to follow, according to the Qu'ran.

Not depicting Mohammad is restriction for Muslims. It is not a restriction for anyone else, even other people under 'Muslim' law.

Or, to think about it the other way around, there are Islamic courts that enforce religious laws on Muslims...and secular courts that enforce law on everyone. Whereas the Western world just has the later, and when we had the former we applied it to everyone (Aka, killing Jews in the Inquisition.), so we don't quite understand that Muslim religious courts are just that...for Muslims.

If you are, for example, a Jew living in Saudi Arabia, it is entirely legal under the law to depict Mohammad. (Erm, in theory, at least.)

And, as you pointed out, it's only a restriction under some versions of Islam anyway!

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[jonadab]

> The EU is - what - 30-some years old?

Oh, I skipped over this before, but I should probably address it: the EU is (at least as a relevant factor with any significance) nowhere near that old. Thirty years ago the Cold War was still on, the wall and the curtain still up, and the situation in Europe somewhat different, politically, from today. Well, not different in a big-picture "a bunch of little states squabbling and trying to avoid actually coming to blows, except in the Balkans" sort of way, but the details were different.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Philip_the_physicist]

remove the rights of same sex people to marry

Where does this "right" come from? In a purely US-Centric view our "Rights" are ceded to us by our creator (whomever you believe him, it to be). Nowhere in Christian theology (upon which the United States laws are based) is the right of two people of the same sex to marry mantioned.

The right comes from one of the fundamental principles of English Common Law systems, which is that everyone has the right to do anything not explicitly forbidden, and from the basic concepts of a just, free, society, that no rights should be restricted except to protect others from a greater infringement of their safety or property and that any such impositions should be removed as soon as the evidence to justify the impositions becomes too weak.

The fact is that if secular society wants to recognise a lasting relationship between two people of any kind that's fine. What can not be expected is that churches should be forced to recognize non-traditional pairings as married nor mandated to perform such ceremonies. That is protected by a little thing called the first ammendment to the contitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That's basically irrelevant: no-one with any sense would want to ask someone who is opposed to the couple's marriage to officiate at their wedding, except as a form of trolling. I don't see anyone asking for governments to require all marriage celebrants to marry any couple which asks them to. What people are asking for is to be able to be civilly married to their beloved, which would have very little implementation cost for society, since there is very little which assumes that either spouse is male or female. Personally, I think that is not a very good long-term goal, since I would prefer a system of n-ary partnerships established via contract law, but same sex marriages are simple, moderately effective in meeting the needs of the non-heterosexual community, and has no impact on heterosexual couples, so it would be a reasonable stop-gap solution.

Is there any way in which providing equal privileges to homosexual couples would be harmful to you as (presumably) either a single person or a member of a heterosexual couple?

If it's politically correct to say it or not the fact remains that homosexuality differs from the norm...

Unusual is not inherently bad. Besides that, various estimates have put the number of homosexuals in the USA at between 2% and 10%, and I suspect that underestimates the non-heterosexual population. In teh CS department at my university, last year some members of the subject club pooled their knowledge of the sexuality of the domestic students who were actively involved in the departmental culture (that is, they had near full lecture/tutorial attendance, attended the special lectures given by staff and outsiders on matters of general interest, and took part in official departmental events)and estimated that only about quarter of the males were definitively straight, and at most a third were either certainly or probably straight, and about a sixth[1] were bisexual[2] but in a long-term monogamous heterosexual relationship at the time. Approximately a third were homosexual, and a few (...and is, biologically speaking, of no use to furthering the human species. It is an inherrently selfish pursuit that leaves the notion of service to your fellow man (make jokes about that if you like!) completely out of the picture.

Is heterosexual sex without the intent to have a child any less biologically useless or inherently selfish (let's assume that, since you don;t want children, you are using some form of effective contraceptive). What about someone who doesn't have sex at all? (This ignores the points the SP brings up, although they are valid too, because this simpler argument is s

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ravenshrike]

But can they be techno-savvy AND post on slashdot convincingly?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[gtall]

From the Koran:

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Sura 5: 52.
O ye who believe ! take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily ALLAH guides not the unjust people.

Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mace9984]

A better question.......... why in the hell were they watching southpark to begin with?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ravenshrike]

Which is a shitty translation from the original Hebrew done because ol Jamie boy was paranoid about witches. Your point?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

So, irrespective of the particulars of my logic, are we to assume that your position is that radicals should be able to force non-believers to follow their religious edicts?

I hope this is not the case, but in the future you may wish to throw a little more substance out there yourself, lest we misunderstand you.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Skreems]

And how many quotes are there in the bible about violence? "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Stone adulterers. Put people who eat shellfish on Fridays to death, for they are abomination.

You can also find peaceful quotes in both. Across language barriers and ignoring context you can find quotes in any religion to support the message you want.

I'm not saying that the quotes you provided aren't in the Koran. I'm saying that the people are peaceful or violent and twist the religion to support them, not the other way around.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AndersOSU]

I agree with your analysis, but Christianity has been that way for about 85% of its existence - so while it may not have started that way "true" Christianity is described by its history, not by what it could have been. (c.f. communism)

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mrdoogee]

Well..... As recently as the 1990's Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in Northern Ireland. They still are telling each other to STFU. I'm not sure what the Pope has said in regards to it recently, but there has definitely been Catholic/Protestant violence in our lifetime.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AndersOSU]

Nah, Christianity found it's peaceful resolution in the wake of the destruction of the 30 years war. After the population of western europe was decimated by religiously motivated violence eventually (after 30 years) the powers at be, both political and sectarian decided that whether or not you pray to Mary isn't worth fighting for.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Skreems]

The message in the founding book of Christianity is pretty consistent: Love thy enemy [bible.cc]. Jesus didn't kill anybody, argued against his disciples when they raised the sword, and didn't protest when sentenced to death unjustly. Where is the violence in that? Christians may have killed, sinned, even harmed children :-(, but they'd be hard-pressed to point out the part of the gospel justifying such actions.

Christians found justification for the Crusades, witch burning, and the spanish inquisition, all in the Bible. I don't think they were right, but they did.

Yes, the Quran is being used to justify these death threats. There are plenty of Muslims out there who would argue that the people doing so are wrong in their interpretation.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

Do you have a different understanding of the few hadith to which I refer? You're saying those hadith do not prohibit depictions of Muhammad to deter idolatry?

Don't get mad at me, this is what these particular Muslims believe. If you follow back their thinking, the conclusion is inescapable: they're worried that people will worship a representation of Muhammad, depicted in an episode of South Park, and Matt & Trey will have distracted throngs of the faithful from living a good, godfearing life.

But I understand, you're calling for action that will increase the chance of reasonable mediation here. Am I to assume that you see two legitimately debatable sides to this story: one side that supports free expression and does not believe Islam will be splintered by an episode of South Park, and the other side that thinks it would not be wrong to murder Matt & Trey because they doodled something offensive?

By the way, what do you mean "from the safety of my desktop"? Would you prefer we were debating these issues in some kind of face-to-face venue that would give you physical access to me? Might this be desirable for you because, were we to disagree, you could engage a form of "mediation" that involves goin' all roving death squad on me?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

I've never seen, for example, militant Buddhists.

You are not familiar with the history of Japanese Imperial Buddhists, then.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[daniel.b.douglas]

Just in case you weren't aware, a red-letter Bible is one in which only the quotations of Jesus are highlighted in red. So nobody had to "decide" which parts to highlight, the implication is that the highest value are given to the statements straight from the horse's (or deity's) mouth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-Letter_Christian

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

I'm saying that the people are peaceful or violent and twist the religion to support them, not the other way around.

You have missed the underlying point of the argument here. What allows this twisting around (of both the peaceful and not-so-peaceful kinds) to gain a following and force is the disconnect of logic that religion not only allows, but requires. If people were to choose to stay in the realm of what can be soundly argued, however, it would not be so easy to get good people to do bad things.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[CowTipperGore]

This rings false to me. It seems you're implying that the violence level of "any other religion" is well-defined, as in, every other religion is more or less as violent as each other.

There is no doubt that the GP's statement was false in its overgeneralization. Some religions are overtly non-violent, such as the various offshoots of the Christian Anabaptists (including the Amish). They certainly aren't mainstream Christians but with numbers in the one to two million range, they are a legitimate Christian sect.

I've never seen, for example, militant Buddhists. Well, perhaps a Buddhist (or someone claiming to be one) who is militant about something else, but no-one who spreads Buddhism by force.

Then you should pay attention to some international news. Folks in Sri Lanka would disagree with your claims.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[CowTipperGore]

The bits I think apply are the bits that Jesus taught, not other men. The religion (mine anyway) revolves around what Jesus taught, not the disciples. It's easy to be a Christian, but damned hard to follow Christ's teachings (and I don't always succeed).

Unfortunately, your religion still revolves around what other men taught. You just happen to give these bits more value because you believe the tradition that Jesus spoke them.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[CowTipperGore]

Christianity is more of a philosophical movement, than a religion like Judaism.

I think you meant "was". Good luck finding (what we generally accept as) Jesus' message in today's Christians.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[huckamania]

The barbarians that conquered Europe after the fall of Rome were not beatnik pacifists. Christianity was a huge improvement over the belief system that the hordes were practicing at the time, which allowed them to plunder, pillage and rape with no bad feelings at all.

Contrast that to Islam where plunder, pillage and rape is still okay so long as it is against non-Muslims.

It certainly is a shame that so many slashdotters were molested by priests (the only reason I can see for the anti-christian hostility on display), but that doesn't excuse distorting history and turning every story about Islam into an anti-christian hate fest. What kind of argument is "but the christians did bad things also". A bad argument to be sure.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

Techno-savvy isn't a requirement to answer, I just figured it would be one since we're here on /.

I agree, your post is most definitely not a troll. Mods, though, what are ya gonna do?

You're a real, live, hard-line Muslim that agrees with the call to do harm to Matt & Trey here? (I didn't explicitly state this as a requirement for responding, but I thought it was implicit...in any case, just want to clarify before continuing...)

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ubermiester]

homosexuality differs from the norm and is, biologically speaking, of no use to furthering the human species.

First of all, you're wrong about what "normal" is. If you mean - of all human beings, when a minority has a particular trait, it is not normal - then you are incorrectly conflating "normal" and "majority", and you've got some serious explaining to do. Is a blue-eyed person not "normal" because most people are brown eyed? What about a left-handed person? Blonde hair? Attached earlobes? Pale skin? (Caucasians are a distinct minority in the world). It is not the simple fact of being a minority that defines normal or abnormal. If a minority is persistent across time, it becomes part of the "norm".

Conversely, a two-headed cow is not "normal" because it happens very rarely and, more significantly, very irregularly. Homosexual animals (including people) occur in regular proportions (probably much more commonly then we previously thought) and persist at those levels across time. That makes them as "normal" as blondes or southpaws.

And going beyond what is normal or abnormal, there is also the matter of whether it is possible (or even normal) for a less-frequently appearing trait to achieve some kind of useful equilibrium with a more common inter-related trait in such a way as to have an overall positive effect. Consider the fact that a given individual's sexual preference is just a piece of a larger sociological puzzle that allows complex cultures to emerge. A more "feminine" male would not necessarily be interested in sexual relations with another male, but a latent attraction might allow more masculine males to assume leadership positions without need for violence or intimidation. Or similarly, maybe when there are too many masculine men in a society, there is too much competition and no one is able to establish stability and order. Therefore, the continuum of gender association is actually a fluid and quite useful trait.

Similarly, a woman with masculine traits can be quite normal and quite useful to a society. And just because they are attracted to other females instinctively, that does not necessarily diminish the powerful need to reproduce (remember, artificial insemination is a VERY new thing - lesbian women still had to get pregnant the old fashioned way...). So a woman ends up with the (occasionally) useful traits of masculinity with none of the side effects of lower overall reproductive rates.

And finally, your claim about homosexual behavior being selfish is rather odd considering that perhaps 99.9% of sexual intercourse takes place for selfish reasons. There is nothing about sex in fact that isn't selfish. It's about meeting needs and desires that have been around for hundreds of millions of years. Animals don't know they are reproducing. They only know that they have an overwhelming desire to do whatever it takes to have sex.

Even on a purely moral level, based on your logic, what would stop a homosexual from turning around and saying that your last non-baby-producing romp was selfish and useless and therefore should be considered "abnormal"? Moreover, a homosexual is almost completely free of any reproductive limitations by virtue of modern science. Artificial insemination is now quite common and very successful. Why shouldn't everyone be able to love and build a family with whomever they want if there is no practical reason for a penis to always meet up with a vagina?

And finally, even if you claim that the government shouldn't be endorsing same-sex marriages because they can't do what marriage was designed to do without help, does that mean a sterile person should face the same ban? What about a couple that has no intention of having children at all? Is it really about children then?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ImprovOmega]

No, it happened when Christianity stopped being a useful tool of control for governments when people became educated and actually read what the teachings were. The same thing is likely to happen to Islam when its followers start becoming educated and actually read the Qu'ran. Then the governments there will seek out some other method of control.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Ezel]

It's coming to all other countries around the world too. The United Nations have been pushed to accept a Resolution to Combat Defamation of Religion that would bar worldwide all criticism of religions.

These are dangerous times, just like all other times before. If democracy and freedom of speech isn't practiced it will erode away before our eyes.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Folks in Sri Lanka would disagree with your claims.

My claims? That I've never personally seen militant Buddhists?

Wow, they must really be militant! ;-)

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[lwsimon]

Republican != Christian

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[KDR_11k]

shouldn't your first problem, before Matt & Trey, be with the second most populous denomination of Islam, the Shi'a, who apparently have no problem with depictions of Muhammad?

Isn't that actually the reason for most of the terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq now?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ted_smiles]

There is one. It's called the "Cult of Cartman".

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[lwsimon]

In modern American English, to murder is to unlawfully kill.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AndersOSU]

Well at least the quotations attributed to Jesus by his proselytizing disciples some 30 to 60 years after his death.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AndersOSU]

it's more like intentionally and unjustifiably cause someone to become dead.

If I come home and you're beating and raping my wife, you better believe I'm intending to kill you - but because killing in defense of life is justified it's not murder.

But now we're talking Old Testament, 10 commandments law. Jesus' teachings and example would tend to indicate that you can't even kill to save your own life, though it's a little tougher to parse whether or not you can kill to protect someone else. Probably for pragmatic purposes than anything else, most christian doctrines throughout history have taught that you can intentionally kill other people to protect someone else's life - and this is how we get to the just war theory...

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mcgrew]

As I don't live in Ireland my knowlege if the facts are at best suspect, but I was under the impression that it had little to do with religion, and much to do with cultural identity. Wasn't "give Ireland back to the Irish" the battle cry?

I should have asked the fellow from Ireland I met several years ago, but as he introduced me to the "terrorist drink" (Irish Car Bomb) it probably would have been one sided.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AndersOSU]

Well considering that at the time Moses revived the 10 commandments he was on a quest to wipe the Canaanites off the face of the earth - I'd say yeah, the 10 commandments implicitly allow warfare.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Dthief]

It was actually Trey and Matt flying the planes.....but they had an ejector seat

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[LanMan04]

God doesn't exist. "Nature" (i.e. the natural universe, not just Earth) is the closest thing we have, I suppose.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[default luser]

And Stephen King had the protagonist of The Running Man crash his plane into The Network headquarters tower. This was in 1982.

Not exactly a new idea.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Skreems]

I agree, but I still think that quality is inherent in ALL religions, not just certain ones. Or at least, some religions may encourage individual interpretation and rational thought more than others, but that's completely orthogonal to whether they "encourage" violence or peace.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[PopeRatzo]

He's attempting to redefine "tolerance" as "loving acceptance"

I thought Jesus already did that. You know, all that "love your neighbor as yourself" stuff? I don't think he meant "love your heterosexual neighbors" or "love your conservative neighbors" or "love your neighbors who are in this country legally".

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mattsucks]

So South Park caused the 9/11 attacks.

And here I thought it was Kyle.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mcgrew]

I can't argue with that, but it changes nothing.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mapkinase]

There are two answers to this question. General answer which I am sure of is that offenders should be dealt very harshly, depending on the offense. Specific answer in this case is that since aired episode was censored, their insult did not become as public as they wanted it to be.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[BobMcD]

No true Scotsman eh?

"The black ink is just the backstory, the message and teaching is in red."

LOL.

So someone has sat down and decided this? They got to decide what are the real teachings and rules and what aren't?

Maybe you could have researched this a bit first, but the red letters are intended to indicate what words Christ actually said. The assumption is that since so many were intent on hearing him speak that these were fairly-well recorded. The other matters tend to differ from gospel to gospel as these weren't written to be history books.

Son of God or not, Christ came to speak to us and share his message. It follows that this would have been most carefully recorded.

Whether or not I'm actually explaining anything here, or whether this is relatively-common knowledge isn't important. But you might have gotten a Google hit or two if you weren't looking for quick lol's.

Face it, like most religious people, you're picking and choosing which bits you think apply to you based on your own values. You don't follow the religion, you fit it around yourself.

Well...

Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

Christ emphasized a personal relationship with him. It doesn't say you need religion at all to 'come to the Father'. I'm not certain how open to interpretation this is, exactly, but much of what would be found in the red letters contradicts the notion of fundamentalism you're advocating (in order to get your lol's.)

One of the most paradoxical things about Christ is that he was almost an anti-religious figure. He once opened up a can of whoop-ass against the church of the day, and challenged it regularly. I'm not at all certain his teachings would support everything the church does, in the modern form. I think a lot more of that lends back to the Roman roots of the Catholic organization than anything done or said by Christ himself.

In short, the red letters are the good stuff.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ekgringo]

The Koran isn't written in English, so one translation may lean more towards "fight", another translation may be leaning more towards "make an effort".

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

I don't think it's orthogonal. I think that encouraging rational thought is directly related to whether you can keep good people from doing evil. I do agree that all religion is irrational by definition. I'm not sure that philosophically speaking there is much difference from religion to religion—a logical disconnect is a logical disconnect, in a math proof it doesn't matter if I insert an incorrect step asserting 1=0 or some more convoluted incorrect statement...either way, from there I can prove anything I want.

That's addressing the core of the rational difference from religion to religion, of course in practice different religions do break into different categories across the spectrum. But this has more to do with the affluence of the average adherent at any one moment, I think, than anything to do with the core values of the particular faith.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

So, you believe that freedom of expression is a less important human right than requiring even nonbelievers to respect your religion under threat of physical reprisal?

If yes, is this a hypocritical belief, or do you think we ought to be required to respect the beliefs of all faiths equally? (Just to pick one out of the hat, for instance, the fundamentalist Mormon belief that dark-skinned people are cursed by god.)

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mrdoogee]

The two (in Ireland at least) are too intertwined to deal with as a separate issue. The Irish Nationalists (or Republicans), who for the most part identify as Roman Catholic, want a unified Ireland which would be presumably Catholic. The Unionists, who are predominantly Protestant support the UK continuing its governance of Northern Ireland. The religion and cultural identity of these groups are virtually inseparable. To a Nationalist, a Protestant is a Unionist and a Unionist is a Protestant. To Unionists, the same is true.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Dread_ed]

Correlation does not equal causation. People who want to kill other people will find an excuse to do so.

Christianity is all about freedom. For instance, God did not stop Satan from tempting Adam and Eve even though God abhors temptation and sin. Similarly, he did not stop Adam and Eve from partaking of the fruit. Eons before this, God did not stop Satan and his followers from changing their minds about God's dominion and revolting. Even today, God does not enforce his beliefs on people nor does He advocate doing so. He did this because freedom is the ultimate gift of God to mankind and is the reason man was created in God's (mental) image.

You, like many others, have failed to distinguish the murderer from the message, and the oppressor from his excuse. The Bible forbids and decries such behavior from cover to cover, and yet you still insist that Christianity itself is responsible for people who commit those acts. Could you be any more obtuse?

Let's break it down:
1) Christian rule book says "Don't murder"
2) Person commits murder, claims to do it for Christianity
3) You say "It's Christianity!"

In the case of Christianity, it's the person, not the religion at the root of the problems you state. Some people will find any reason they can to justify their actions, no matter how unsuitable, incongruous, or inconsistent that reason and action are. Just be cognizant enough to discern the difference and don't let murderers, bombers, and tyrants masquerading as Christians dictate your thoughts about a religion that specifically prohibits those actions. I hate to say it like this, but doing so belies either an irrationallly intence presupposed prejudice against Christianity for which you are searching for justification, or a simplemindedness that is staggering in its vacuosity. As you seem to have your faculties about you I will go with option 3, that you misunderstand or are unaware of what the Bible says on these subjects, possibly having been misinformed at the hands of those who conform to the previous two categories I mentioned.

Side note: as an orthodox fundamental Christian I believe, as the Bible teaches, that government is a tool of humanity instituted by God to provide freedom to those who live under it. The purpose of this freedom is to allow each and every human self determination, as this is consistent with the will of God for mankind while they are on Earth. Therefore, as an instrument of freedom, government should not restrict the rights of people where they do not conflict with the sovereign rights of life, privacy, property. This includes granting an exclusive franchise to individuals or groups based on age (subject to limits of self determination), race, sex, economic condition, or religion. In conclusion, this specifically means the government should not concern itself with the sex of partners who apply for a legally sanctioned recognition of their relatioship, like marriage. In addition, they should not force, coerce, or mandate churches to perform ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[vxice]

problem is how do you separate church and state if the church represents god and His ways and will for every thing on this earth from government which is a subset of everything on earth. how can the faithful allow the unfaithful to go along with their life knowing it will lead them to hell and eternal punishment. all faiths have had to prostrate like this, by allowing tolerance they aren't seen as giant pricks stuck on their view of how the world should be. they have to do this because people want a faith that tells them there is a reason for being and that they are not just giant pain collecting machines heading towards oblivion. it is a comfort thing not truly a universal truth thing. if you question this ask someone who is faithful about evolution, if their defense is "well would like to have evolved from monkey I sure wouldn't" kindly remind them that the universe does not care what they 'want' and that it was doing alright on its own for many years before they came along. life ends and there is no users manual you have to figure it out like the rest of us.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Bloomy]

Son of God or not, Christ came to speak to us and share his message. It follows that this would have been most carefully recorded.

And even then there are problems. Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11 both quote Jesus discussing divorce. Both verses say marrying another person after divorce is adultery, though Matthew's quote includes an exception for fornication, sexual immorality or unfaithfulness, depending on the version. Which one is correct?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mapkinase]

It's like we are talking different languages.

In my book the principles that relate to "expression" (speech) are those:

1. Guard the tongue, because that's one of two things that can lead you to Hell.
2. Forbid evil with your hand, your tongue or at least in your heart
3. Do not slander, do not insult, do not backbite, do not involve in empty talk.

You can invent all kinds of freedoms for yourself, but if the expression of your freedoms invokes one of the causes that require us to take action against you, then Muslims WILL take action against you.

We do not have common ground of laws, because your laws come mostly from Shaitan, and my laws are from Allah.

The question of Prophet's honor cannot be a matter of negotiation of any implicit or explicit agreement between Muslims living in the West and Western governments. That means that if any Muslim is forced to sign such agreement or is implied as being in such agreement, he has no Islamic obligation to follow the clause of that agreement that implies that Muslims should tolerate insults against the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam.

If you say that I should go then to other country, I say that I have a choice of either undergoing hardship of moving to such country (which one?) or doing what I do here facing potential persecution from the Western government for my views.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[dgatwood]

It was not until Romans "accepted" Christians, that the Romans embolded the cross on their shields to "sub-due/appease" the Christians, and get "God on their side." in battle. This is rediculous, since Christianity was born out of suffering, and now the "government" was using it to breed war and violence. Not the roots of Christianity any longer, but a wholistic change but the use of manipulative governments!

The same could be true of Islam today. It's not the roots of their religion causing the violence in the Middle East.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Skreems]

That's addressing the core of the rational difference from religion to religion, of course in practice different religions do break into different categories across the spectrum. But this has more to do with the affluence of the average adherent at any one moment, I think, than anything to do with the core values of the particular faith.

That's what I'm saying. The extent to which religion discourages rational thought makes it easy for a leader to twist it toward whatever end they want, be it encouraging good behavior or bad behavior in their followers. Some religions discourage rational thought to a greater degree than others, but I don't see anything inherent in them that makes it easier to turn toward evil than toward good (or the other way around) once you've got those followers indoctrinated.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Pharmboy]

I'm not convinced that Europe has better beef than America. As a matter of fact, every European I know, the first thing they want when they take business trips here is a good T-bone steak. They say the beef in Europe is tasteless compared to US beef. Might be all the hormones we use, however. Either way, Europeans who have compared the two, prefer US beef for flavor.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[BobMcD]

I'd contend you should look at them both and determine which is more likely to have been said by Christ himself.

"What would Jesus do", as it were.

(Hint, he refused to stone the prostitute...)

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Draconius42]

If that's seriously the best example you have, that Peter ALMOST killed someone, then that sorta proves his point right there.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[denzo]

*looks at prop8 in california, all other anti-gay legislation, anti-abortion laws* And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Christians have been trying to push their morals and beliefs down the throats of everyone in the US for centuries.

"anti-gay"... oh, you mean the laws that defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the laws that existed as long as this country existed (adopted from the countries that the colonists originated from)?

"anti-abortion"... oh, you mean upholding the law against murdering an innocent human? It's not a Choice, it's a Child.

It's interesting how modernists have taken basic rights and turned them around into negative terminology, and using euphemisms for things that used to be morally wrong but now are okay because you put a "pro-" in front of them and demonize the opposing view by putting an "anti-" in front of them.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mdielmann]

Christian churches 1/10th the size of the Catholic Church have been telling them to STFU for over 1600 years. Yes, that's about how long the Catholic Church has been around. Go figure.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[WNight]

No no, you forgot to read anything...

If you're a religious believer, you've already established yourself as partially insane

That's not bigoted. It's fact.

Religion is commonly accepted as belief in things without proof, having faith. Believing in something without proof is insane.

Intolerance would be to say these insane people can't have ice cream with everyone else, because even insane people like sweets and it wouldn't hurt anyone if they did have some. However it wouldn't be intolerance to ignore their opinion on complex matters because they've proven themselves to be incapable of rational thought or honesty.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I can't believe you got modded up for that steaming pile of bullshit.

Lets take a look at just one of your accusations:

-After that get a few people to claim that people are prejudice about the religion and that the religion has been corrupted by a few people and that their views do not reflect all followers of the religion even though the actions of the few radicals are never denounced.

Here are links to literally hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of public muslim figures denouncing the "actions of the few radicals."

The abyss has stared back at you and you have succumbed to it.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Or, in other words, radical Muslims are fearful that a large faction of the faithful will splinter off and form a new denomination based on the worship of an episode of South Park. They're so anxious over this possibility, these groups have threatened to suborn the murder of Matt Stone & Trey Parker by dispatching roving death squads.

While quite humorous, your interpretation of the motivation of these radicals is completely off-base. It doesn't take much to figure that out either - for the same reason what you wrote is funny, it doesn't pass the laugh test. These guys aren't worried about the idolatry prohibitions, they are worried that South Park and those other cartoons insult their prophet. Its a straightforward blasphemy issue.

There are plenty of depictions of Mohamed in Arabic literature, although there are also plenty of examples where the anti-idolatry stuff has been taken too far, such as a general reluctance to use illustrations of any sort in some periods of arabic history, leading to the development of highly stylized calligraphy as an outlet for artistic expression.

But here and now, these guys are worked up over perceived insults, not false gods.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[hkmwbz]

Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[MikeFM]

I'd be willing to fund their fight if they promise to wipe each other out quickly.

Of course I generally support letting people reach the self destruct point as quickly as possible. For example I think we should give drugs away for free as the solution the the war on drugs. Get the people who will destroy themselves to get on with it so the rest of us can stop spending money on them. Maybe we could even run an ad campaign - "Please use drugs, we don't like you."

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[deathtopaulw]

Read his post, his example is of "Good-natured" christians infringing on the social and political rights of a group of people who apparently just really like the look of a good dick. They don't hurt anyone, they don't perform any lewd acts in front of their homes, they just simply want to live life in their own way. These happy christians really don't like that. That is a perfect example of intolerance.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

It'll be back up in about 2 weeks. They do this with all their new episodes (available right away, blocked for a couple weeks, then available again indefinitely).

Except that we're not talking about the new episodes (200 & 201). The episode in question is the season 5 episode "Super Best Friends" which aired almost nine years ago (July, 2001).

That episode did show Mohammed, as one of the Super Best Friends. That Comedy Central, or whoever is in charge of what South Park Studios can air on-line, would take it down now, after so much time has passed, is as big a problem as the uber-censoring done to episode 201.

Weak, dude. Super weak.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ksemlerK]

Here's an alternate: http://www.allsp.com/loading.php?url=l.php?id=e69

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Skreems]

I misunderstood. That's pretty fucked up.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Splab]

Nonesense.

People claiming T-Bone might be tastier in the US are frankly idiots (same goes the other way around, never claimed they would taste better, I claimed better meat), but even so, if I ever go to the US I will hit burger joints (not the big chains, but the proper burger joints) and places that sells T-Bone and spare ribs like there was no tomorrow. The reason I suspect, for most people thinking the meat is better in the US is because it's cheaper (think heavily subsidiced) and thus normal people can actually afford going to a proper grill and buy a T-Bone.

In Europe the meat is very expensive, want to buy a T-Bone (proper prepared) in Copenhagen it will set you back at least $100 (for the T-Bone, add another $50 for wine), thus most people end up cooking it themselves and mess it up, making a propper meal out of meat is an artform - overheat your nice beautiful slice of backside and you will end up with something thats best used as a new sole for your shoes.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[lucian1900]

Unless it's not less stress on the cattle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQOKQ__3vQw

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Lillesvin]

And you base this distinction on ... what?

'Murder' is subordinate to 'kill' --- i.e. it's a type of 'killing', hence entailing that while murder signifies intention, you can still also intentionally kill someone while you can't unintentionally murder someone. Well, you can of course, what with free will, plasticity of language and all, but that doesn't change the way the distinction is actually made by language users.

You'll have to elaborate further on 'justifiable', because I can't see how that has anything to do with the distinction.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AndersOSU]

I did elaborate. I can intentionally kill someone in self-defense, but it's still not murder.

And then there's the death penalty, which is not only intentional but premeditated and demanded by the old testament. You can't ban intentional killing and then require that adulterers be stoned.

As to who makes the determination - well that would be the political powers in control at the moment. Yeah, that pokes holes in the neat absolutism that religion tries to profess, but I'm more comfortable with that than saying genocide is ok if god tells you to do it.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Pharmboy]

The people I am talking about preferring US beef aren't afraid of paying $100 for a steak. These are business owners, industry leaders, etc. People of means. I have done limited traveling in Europe, mainly Belgium and Eastern Europe. Comparing to Eastern Europe is not valid, as you can't find the quantity or quality of food you would find in the West. As for Belgium, the food there was certainly good but not above what I would expect in any US city. I did notice they were quite sparing with the meat in dishes, but I didn't eat enough beef to get a real comparison. Anyway, I wasn't making the claim, I was simply saying that I know many Europeans who say so, and have never worked with one who felt the opposite was true.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Lillesvin]

You're completely missing my point.

First of all, leave all of the biblical stuff out - we're talking about a synchronic distinction in language use. You know, how people use language ... today!

Second, I'm saying that 'murder' implies intent. That doesn't mean that 'kill' is inherently unintentional, since I'm also postulating that 'murder' is subordinate to 'kill'. In turn, this means that you can replace the word 'murder' with 'kill' in a given phrase and still get the same meaning, but not the other way around (i.e. replace 'kill' with 'murder').

Some examples:
1a) the queen murdered the king
1b) the queen killed the king
2a) curiosity killed the cat
2b) curiosity murdered the cat
See the difference? Both 1a and 1b are perfectly fine, since 'murder' is inherently intentional, while 'kill' is optionally intentional. 2a and 2b aren't the same, because in this case the killing is unintentional, so paraphrasing 2a as 2b clearly results in a different meaning, since 'murder' is inherently intentional.

Go look at some corpora of English, and find me some instances of 'murder' being used in a sense that doesn't mean 'intentionally killing' if you want to disprove my argument (and no, metaphorical uses don't count - they're an entirely different species), otherwise you're just wasting my time.

I love how you jump into a discussion of semantics and apparently want to discuss everything but semantics.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

Some religions discourage rational thought to a greater degree than others...

I disagree...the point I made earlier about this is that, from a philosophical standpoint, all religions are equally absurd. The only thing that changes is the willingness of a particular religion's followers to be exploited. The poorer, the more ignorant, etc, the easier to exploit. Judaism is a respected religion today...all the ridiculousness is there in the texts, but the followers are fairly well-to-do. Christianity exists in more places...in the US it's fairly sane for most people, in some South American countries somewhat less so, and in Uganda (which is 80% Christian) it's pretty crazy. Nigeria, on the other hand, is so poor that the local religions are essentially based on witch doctors; there's been a recent increase in child sacrifice so that practitioners can bury the bones of the slain children in the foundation of their houses, which will supposedly bring wealth.

But, then, it's important to recognize that this is an honestly held faith in Nigeria, and it is disrespectful to criticize it or prevent it followers from practicing it.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

We do not have common ground of laws, because your laws come mostly from Shaitan, and my laws are from Allah.

Ah, well, if you believe you have divine warrant, I suppose we do not have a common ground of laws. The laws I wish to follow are based on the notion of minimizing human suffering in this world, while yours are optimized for gaining access to a place in the afterlife that I do not believe exists. And, while I can follow a logical progression of argument for the laws I advocate for, you admit you cannot—if you admit an iota of faith, you yield this point. Despite conceding this and in spite of the fact that I'm happy to leave you to your beliefs, it seems that's not enough either...you cannot keep your beliefs to yourself, as you say freely:

That means that if any Muslim is forced to sign such agreement or is implied as being in such agreement, he has no Islamic obligation to follow the clause of that agreement that implies that Muslims should tolerate insults against the Prophet...

If I accept your view on this is sane, then I am bound fast. I must to some extent accept and live under Islamic law, allowing you break any agreement after-the-fact you like out of "respect." Your religious views, in other words, are either viral in that you require me to comply with them, or they are disrespected in your view, and you claim religious persecution.

No, I do not accept this. It's hypocritical; you do not recognize the right of other religions to place such impositions on you, yet you expect me to suffer the imposition of yours. Beyond that, your system is not internally consistent; even your prophet discarded certain hadith, the so-called Satanic Verses, but he (and you) are so certain that, in the end, it was finally sorted which of his dictations were given by god and which were not. You cannot be sure of that or anything else in the self-contradictory teachings of your faith without claiming a godlike view into at least some corner of the mind of your deity—is this how you define heresy, though?

The entire force of your position simply revolves around how much of your identity you have invested in your views, which, at the end of the day, leads to you believing that you have divine warrant to force others to live by those views. The thinly veiled violence inherent in your particular brand of belief is evident from what you've written, that "Muslims WILL take action against you."

If you say that I should go then to other country, I say that I have a choice of either undergoing hardship of moving to such country (which one?) or doing what I do here facing potential persecution from the Western government for my views.

I'm uninterested in persecuting you, I would not agree with a government that does so. You're free to hold any crazy beliefs you like, that's fine with me. However, leaving you to your beliefs is different from allowing myself to be compelled by them.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[cavebison]

For those of you that are unaware, the concern among Muslims about depicting Muhammad is based on a few hadith that warn against doing so to prevent idolatry.

The problem with religion, is it attracts the kind of person who is searching for The Truth and is willing to passionately latch on to something, whatever it may be, that offers them a palatable answer, without needing a rationale behind it. Believing in something greater, a higher meaning, is a very powerful human need.

I think early religious leaders recognised this as a bit of a problem. If they can so easily attract followers, then so can anyone else. I mean when you're dealing with a species so prone to fervent belief, they're liable to go off believing any old thing willy-nilly. Can't have that if you want to build a following.

Hence the many rules and clauses to guarantee reward and punishment, to keep the flock focussed. And to put enough doubt into others' minds that they'll think twice before drinking someone else's kool-aid, for fear of burning in eternal hell.

Personally, I think God/Allah/Whomever could care less what the details of our little lives are, what we depict or worship, so long as we're good people and help each other out. It amazes me that people can worry SO much about idiotic details like not drawing a picture of someone, while at the same time being complicit in the subjugation and suffering of their fellow human beings.

What I gather from all this, is that human beings find righteousness to be infinitely more attractive than having to worry about being right.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[jandersen]

Do you have a different understanding of the few hadith to which I refer?

Of course not. But that is not what I criticise - it is the disingenious way you choose to over-interpret or misinterpret, knowing full well that this is what you do. I for one want to have peace in the world, which is why I am strongly opposed to those who, like you, do anything they can to create trouble. How can you expect to bridge the gap that divides them from us, when you are so eager to provoke?

By the way, what do you mean "from the safety of my desktop"? Would you prefer we were debating these issues in some kind of face-to-face venue that would give you physical access to me? Might this be desirable for you because, were we to disagree, you could engage a form of "mediation" that involves goin' all roving death squad on me?

Yes, yes, how very intelligent. Can I assume that this is the kind of level you function on? I go into the bar, call you a "yellow-bellied son of a whatnot" and the we draw our guns? Most mature people are able to discuss, even heatedly, without resorting to violence; and most people are open to finding a solution that doesn't involve a re-enactment of the Final Solution. Are you?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[cataclyst]

..obvious troll is obvious..

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[AndersOSU]

Intent is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for murder.

I agree that murder is subordinate to kill, but not all intentional killing is murder.

Here's an example:
1) The soldier took deliberate aim and killed the enemy.

It's intentional, but you still can't substitute murder.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[mapkinase]

"and you claim religious persecution"

I am not forcing you to wear anything, but Western governments do (our women).

I am not disrespecting you or insulting you publicly, you do. That's the difference.

"your system is not internally consistent; even your prophet discarded certain hadith, the so-called Satanic Verses"

You can claim internal inconsistency only if it refers to finalized laws.

"The thinly veiled violence inherent in your particular brand of belief is evident from what you've written"

That is true. Without threat of violence there is no respect.

And finally, once again: demand that you do not insult me is not compelling you to live by my laws. It's very basic principle of co-existence.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[SolitaryMan]

You mixing up tolerance with acceptance.

I hate religion with all my heart, because it dumbs people down, makes them totally irrational (insane) and hope that one day it will be wiped out from the face of the planet, BUT I'm not going around killing or hurting religious people, I don't threat them and don't encourage others to do so: I tolerate them.

Being tolerant just means being able to cope with something you don't like, even if it is by avoiding it. For example, if someone chooses not to have homosexuals for friends -- it is not intolerance, but when you start denying them jobs for this reason -- it is.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[SolitaryMan]

So ironic to have South Parks' own network so clearly demonstrate the head-in-the-sand behavior which is being protested.

IMO, this irony is what Matt and Trey were aiming for in that episode. They essentially gave the CS administration a choice: either become your own parody or stand up and fight.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[Eli Gottlieb]

Oy gevalt, when did idolatry become the cool new fad?

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[severoon]

I am not forcing you to wear anything, but Western governments do (our women).

I don't support laws that force anyone to dress in a particular fashion, whether the Islamic requirement for women to wear various head or body coverings, or the ridiculous French laws that prohibit them. I do not see a problem requiring people to be identifiable for certain purposes, such as for a photo ID.

I am not disrespecting you or insulting you publicly, you do. That's the difference.

I don't believe I've insulted or disrespected you in this conversation, so I presume you're using the editorial "you" to mean those whose point of view I represent.

Once again, however, from whence does this inalienable right to be respected or live a life free of offense come? You don't have that right; no one does. And if you did, as I pointed out earlier—and which I trust your acute avoidance in addressing has escaped the notice of exactly no one—it would be hypocritical of you to not similarly respect others the same, from the Mormon that believes dark-skinned people are cursed by god to those like me that believe in freedom of expression.

I know why you're attempting to neatly discard that aspect of the discussion, though; it's unanswerable, and engaging it would devastate your argument.

You can claim internal inconsistency only if it refers to finalized laws.

Well this is an interesting attempt to frame the scope of the discussion, but it's completely arbitrary. When I examine my beliefs, I look at everything, especially when it impacts my day-to-day life. I would think that sweeping away most of your holy texts like this would diminish their importance...is it allowed in your faith to pick and choose what you like to believe and leave the rest?

It's a pointless exercise on your part in any case...I'm quite happy to expose internal inconsistencies in any meaningful subset of this belief structure you care to describe.

That is true. Without threat of violence there is no respect.

This is quite a stupid thing to write; how unenlightened to think that being afraid of a thing and holding it in high esteem are the same thing. Is this view derived from your understanding of the religion of peace?

And finally, once again: demand that you do not insult me is not compelling you to live by my laws. It's very basic principle of co-existence.

You have it exactly wrong. Is demanding a life free from insult not the North Korean regime's greatest crime?

Inviting skeptical inquiry and criticism is the basis for coexistence in a free society, and that requires that people be free to insult each other. The type of society you propose would not allow the free exchange of ideas; people could be held accountable not for what they say, but how others take it, which is quite out of one's control. It's not for lack of trying, either...every religion has tried to create this society at one point or another to disastrous effect. You state just prior the incoherence of your position by saying baldly that your proposed "very basic principle of co-existence" necessarily begets violence—some principle of coexistence!

Your proposed utopia is my worst nightmare.

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[RockDoctor]

The religion and cultural identity of these groups are virtually inseparable. To a Nationalist, a Protestant is a Unionist and a Unionist is a Protestant. To Unionists, the same is true.

You did put in a protective "virtually" in there, and just as well.
One of my best friends at university was an Ulster Protestant Republican. Which may be why he was at uni outside Ulster, though I don't think so (if he'd stayed in Ulster, he'd have gone to QUB ; which would have meant that he'd have to have stayed living at home with Mummy. Not an acceptable solution.)

Actually, a good way of deflating pricks of either colour who are boring you about the subject is to point out that the Irish Republican movement was founded by, and the first rebellions were almost entirely composed of, Protestants. That's never a bad card to play when trying to get a Paisleyite's head to explode, and it's pretty effective at brain-fucking the more thuggish Fenians too.

As with so many false dichotomies, they're only really likely to get you shot when you meet idiotic thugs of one chotomy or the other ; people with enough intelligence to recognise the concept of "false dichotomy", or even of "grey" instead of "black || white", are unlikely to be particularly dangerous.

If the black/white dichotomy on the island of Ireland is painted in green/orange, would the equivalent of "shades of grey" be "shades of shitty brown"?

(I just checked : Orange (@ R255+G128) + Green (@R000+G255) comes to a rather pleasant shade of pistachio green (R170+G255), or something grimmer, like grass cuttings that have been on the compost heap for a couple of weeks (R101+G154) ; it depends on how you choose to scale colour saturations.
Oh well, that was one beautiful colour magic hypothesis slain by an ugly fact.)

Re:I wonder how long until it "accidentally" leaks

[ClioCJS]

Intolerance should not be tolerated. Freedom should be. One of the favorite responses from bigots is that you are being a bigot too by calling them assholes. It happens every time.

This will kill South Park

[thren]

The manatees will stop working if even 1 idea ball is removed

Re:This will kill South Park

[Anonymous Coward]

But South park is written by Matt Stone and Trey Parker. It's family guy that is written by manatees.

Knee bone is connected to the...

[denzacar]

There is no knee-jerk but knee-jerk and jerks are its prophets.

Throw their weight around

[MBGMorden]

Honestly, Trey Parker and Matt Stone basically prop up Comedy Central. They only have, what, 3 shows that are really big? The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and South Park. South Park seems to be the top even in that category. Comedy Central needs them more than the other way around. Hell South Park has enough following that it could be profitably distributed as a web series and still make plenty of money from ads and merchandise sales.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Chaos Incarnate]

They're getting what will be a fourth (I hope), Futurama, in June.

Re:Throw their weight around

[rolfwind]

I think you overestimate the current profitability of the online audience... hell, South Park even made fun the difficulty to monetize online success in "Canada on Strike", a relatively recent episode.

Otherwise, I agree with you, those 3 shows carry comedy central. Comedy Central tries to strike out on other good shows but they usually suck, whether cartoons (Drawn Together, Ugly Americans) or shows like Tosh.0.

Hell, reruns of Futurama is their 4th biggest thing, but seeing the same 60 episodes gets old fast... hopefully the new ones will be good.

Re:Throw their weight around

[interkin3tic]

They only have, what, 3 shows that are really big? The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and South Park.

What would you expect? This is the same network that sucessfully pressured Dave Chappelle until he quit. The same network that had reruns of SNL and then decided to instead pick up Mad TV reruns. And that was in just the two or three years I had cable.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who used to work at CC, I'll tell ya they know for sure they need South Park. There are very strict rules about what southpark content can be posted online when, and so on and so forth. However, the legal dept doesn't always answer to the biz guys. That, or the whole thing could just be some kinda PR stunt.

Still, a lot of it I'm sure it based around detailed, multi-year contractual agreements between CC and SP. No network, however much they needed a show, would put themselves in a scenario where legal doesn't have final say in what gets aired.

So throwing their weight around isn't exactly the same as an at will employee threatening to quit if they don't get Hawaiian shirt Fridays.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Hatta]

If The Simpsons on Hulu can be more profitable than on network TV, why would you think South Park wouldn't be able to pull better ad revenues online than on cable?

Re:Throw their weight around

[jcarkeys]

"Canada on Strike" was about internet fads. Chocolate rain, Numa Numa, Star Wars Kid != South Park.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Pinky's Brain]

Saying Mohammed is not going to be judged obscene in any court in the US ... so legal's opinion in this matter is neither here nor there.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Your.Master]

That link doesn't support your claim. It says that the price-per-ad is higher for advertising on the Simpsons on Hulu. It does not say that the Simpsons makes comparable revenue on Hulu as on network TV. In fact, it says that the profit-per-episode-view is much higher on network TV (the revenue is 33% higher, anyway), because there are five times as many (cheaper) ads on network TV. And that doesn't speak to the overall amount of episodes viewed. Which turns out to probably be a lot less at this time judging from the percentages quoted in your article.

So let's fix your question: if the Simpsons can't even come close to the ad revenue they get on cable TV, why would you think that South Park could?

Re:Throw their weight around

[blackraven14250]

Simpsons fans are older.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Pharmboy]

Wrong. Please read the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for citation. The actual content being aired easily passes the test for free and responsible speech. You can't yell "fire" in a movie house, you can't incite a riot, but you certainly can make a point about religious tolerance. This is exactly why the 1st Amendment exists.

Re:Throw their weight around

[thepike]

Yes, the creators of a show can say whatever they want and be protected by the 1st, but the owners of the company airing the show have to worry about being sued. Let's say that they aired the unedited show and some extremists followed through on threats they had made before the show was aired. People could make a case (not necessarily a good one, but since when has having a good case been needed to win over a court?) that it was the studio's fault for not acting on threats they knew about beforehand. Then they could lose a fair bit of money in the lawsuit, even if they won, (not to mention the income they'd lose if south parks creators died and thus stopped creating) so they're doing this to save their own asses.

Also, I'm pretty sure the studio gets to air pretty much whatever they want that isn't regulated by the FCC.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Pharmboy]

Comedy Central isn't an over the air broadcast corporation, they are cable/satellite only. The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction.

CC can air whatever they want that is protected. The first amendment doesn't just protect the artist, but the publication/distribution/airing of the content as well. Someone can sue, but people sue all the time, that is why they have a legal team. This is a clear cut 1st Amendment issue.

They didn't air it out of fear of getting sued, they didn't air it out of fear of getting bombed. Which of course, means it was effective, and all Muslim extremists now are confident that this the course of action they should take: make threats, because it works.

No thanks. You stay in your world, I will stay in mine.

Re:Throw their weight around

[blackraven14250]

They didn't air it out of fear of getting sued

This is likely exactly why they aired it censored. Do you think they want to have any potential liability in someone's death, because they didn't act on a known threat?

I'm not saying I agree with what they did. I'm bringing up the probable reason why they did it without Matt and Trey even knowing about it.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Khyber]

I'm only 27 homeboy.

Re:Throw their weight around

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

If the new episodes of Futurama are anywhere near as terrible as the "movies" were, that will probably be a short run.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Dalambertian]

Can someone please explain why a show on television is considered more profitable to advertisers than the same one streamed online? Do ad agencies just have too much faith in the old model to consider adopting a new one, or is there a better reason? I haven't seen the Canada on Strike episode yet..

Re:Throw their weight around

[TheSpoom]

Congratulations, you've reinvented The Digital Art Auction.

I would like to see it used more though, since the quicker people start using that, the quicker we can phase out copyright in general.

Re:Throw their weight around

[assassinator42]

But it was right after that episode that they made every episode of the show available to stream on their website.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Uh...Comedy Central does broadcast OTA...

Re:Throw their weight around

[Bigjeff5]

Yeah, you need to work on your reading comprehension a little. That article says cost per ad is higher for Hulu, but revenue per thousand viewers is higher for Network TV. In other words, Network TV is not as profitable.

It also says nothing of how many people actually watch Hulu vs Network TV, but given that current internet ad spending for shows is about 5% of what it is for Network TV, and CPMs for most premium internet sites are higher than their network counterpart, I'd imagine Network TV viewership is much, much higher.

Re:Throw their weight around

[Bigjeff5]

Network TV is not as profitable.

Damn, missed that little fuckup - should be Hulu is not as profitable.

Re:Throw their weight around

[mrdoogee]

Exactly. The profit per set of eyeballs is higher, but the profit in general is minuscule compared to the television broadcast profits due to the total viewership being much higher on TV than on Hulu.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of my good karma, you're a moron. They didn't censor the part with Jesus watching porn, or Buda doing lines of coke, they censored the speaking of the word "prophet muhammed" and the "I learned something today" speech that didn't even mention muhammed. All because people are scared of offending muslims.

Give them an inch

[interkin3tic]

Ah, comedy central has made it clear that in response to death threats, they'll censor themselves. I'm sure that will be the last time religious nuts get their panties in a twist and threaten them with violence because they're angry. After all, religious fundamentalism goes hand in hand with being reasonable.

Wonder if we'll ever see Colbert gagged because some right-wing "hutatree" terrorist realized they were being made fun of...

Re:Give them an inch

[feepness]

Ah, comedy central has made it clear that in response to death threats, they'll censor themselves.

Someone needs to death threat them into releasing the episode.

Re:Give them an inch

[Kenja]

So we respond in kind. Threaten violence if they censor stuff. I'm sure they'll respond in a reasonable manor.

Re:Give them an inch

[jaavaaguru]

reasonable manor

I guess that's what you get after making a shitload of money from TV. I just have a tiny apartment.

Re:Give them an inch

[scottrocket]

Ha! Are you a ginger?

Re:Give them an inch

[Locke2005]

Wonder if we'll ever see Colbert gagged because some right-wing terrorist realized they were being made fun of... Not very likely, 'cause that would require a right-wing terrorist to, you know, actually realize they were being made of! I'm sure subtle satire is beyond the ken of most of them.

Re:Give them an inch

[dynamo52]

Wonder if we'll ever see Colbert gagged because some right-wing terrorist realized they were being made fun of

Not very likely, 'cause that would require a right-wing terrorist to, you know, actually realize they were being made of! I'm sure subtle satire is beyond the ken of most of them.

Unfortunately for this country, you are absolutely correct.

Re:Give them an inch

[interkin3tic]

Hence the "wondering about some right wing terrorist realizing it" part of my post...

The media really are pussies

[Sycraft-fu]

I am more than a little tired of this crap of "Oh we have to be culturally sensitive towards the Muslims." No, we don't. We don't need to be culturally sensitive to anyone. I liked Philip Pullman's talk about this general idea when he said "No one has the right to live without being shocked, no one has the right to spend their life without being offended." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=player_embedded).

The media needs to learn that about the Muslims as well. They aren't a special group any more than Christians or Atheists or anyone else. If they want to get whiny about people making fun of them the answer needs to be "Shut up, nobody cares," and then go back to making fun.

A very important part of free speech is the ability to make fun of things, including, maybe even especially, the things people hold sacred.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Dragoniz3r]

But... but... but... if we make fun of them then the middle east will continue to hate us and they'll blow up more of our buildings!!! and then we'll have to invade their countries again to make them stop hating us!!

Re:The media really are pussies

[Jorl17]

There's a problem: it doesn't depend on us. It'd all be fine if we could all cope with the fact that we're mocked at; but the muslims have a different culture and some of them aren't used to coping with that. What's the problem with not coping? Banging is the problem, because they can cause terror.
You can't just come to /. and say: "Grow up, you shouldn't bother with that.". You need to understand that they won't listen to you and that they can effectively attack people because of it, as I see it.
We need to make them see that, indeed, people should control themselves when they're mocked at. On the other hand, you can't just skip over the whole "making see" process and suddenly start showing them Muhammad in a bear suit -- that's just ridiculous. Imagine you're used to never being mocked and, suddenly, without knowing that's possible, or even acceptable, people start stripping your clothes off and laughing, what could happen? Bad things, because you weren't taught how to behave in such a situation.

Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like. It's a phase (and they aren't nearly as bad as we were back then, really) -- it's a transition phase and we need to help them go through it; baby steps.

So, you see, I agree with you, just not with the method that was implicit in your text. And this applies to all pseudo-religions, as I, myself, am an atheist-bastard.

Re:The media really are pussies

[couchslug]

"A very important part of free speech is the ability to make fun of things, including, maybe even especially, the things people hold sacred."

An even more important part of free speech is the right to attack and ridicule any belief and any person. This is vital to freedom because otherwise restraints on speech will be exploited to censor debate and stop opposition.

As for the superstitions of the desert, it would be nice if their followers had but one throat and my hands were on it.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like. It's a phase (and they aren't nearly as bad as we were back then, really)

"we" were? Wowbagger, is that you? Personally, I wasn't alive during the Crusades, but I'm glad you were and are here to tell us about it.

In any case, here among us non-immortal people who are currently alive: anyone who is offended by things like this needs to grow the fuck up.

Re:The media really are pussies

[interkin3tic]

The media needs to learn that about the Muslims as well. They aren't a special group any more than Christians or Atheists or anyone else. If they want to get whiny about people making fun of them the answer needs to be "Shut up, nobody cares," and then go back to making fun.

As an agnostic I'm possibly offended that agnostics weren't specifically mentioned in that statement at all. Maybe offended. I mean, I have no real proof one way or the other.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Hatta]

Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like. It's a phase (and they aren't nearly as bad as we were back then, really) -- it's a transition phase and we need to help them go through it; baby steps.

Looking at history, and human nature, it's more likely that liberal western civilization is a phase. It's a blip in history. The free world is more likely to fall to totalitarianism than the muslim world is to be enlightened.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Erinnys Tisiphone]

Sensible Christians can smile at themselves. Sensible Atheists can smile at themselves. Sensible Catholics can smile at themselves. Sensible Hindus can smile at themselves... And so on... This is a sacrifice we have to make to coexist with the rest of the planet in globalized society. Taking oneself too seriously all of the time (at others' expense) is an indication that one has absolutely no willingness to permit others to be different.

Re:The media really are pussies

[cduffy]

I learned everything I need to know about Islam on 9/11/2001...

And you learned all you needed to know about white guys who hate big government on 4/19/1995?

Re:The media really are pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're essentially saying, "we're going to make fun of you and you damn well better like it because free speech is the ultimate cultural value any one can have."

Fuck that shit. Who are you to say what my cultural values are.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Jorl17]

Not me, not you, our ancestors. You know, those religious fucktards that killed each other because of religion itself? Learn your history and honor it, then find a username and post with that. What we -- yes, WE -- did was truly awful and is, if I may, part of the reason as to why I oppose to religion.

Re:The media really are pussies

[martas]

as a nihilist i don't believe the post exists. [/toofar]

Re:The media really are pussies

[Jorl17]

You may be right there, but such doesn't prevent us from trying and change the prediction. After all, we control our future -- it's too bad that few of us actually have the brains to go in the right direction.

Re:The media really are pussies

[dissy]

but the muslims have a different culture and some of them aren't used to coping with that.

Hopefully the Koran teaches them how to call the waaaamberlamps

Re:The media really are pussies

[stand]

Why are we laboring under the illusion that Comedy Central cares about free speech? They aren't compromising any deeply held principles. They have decided that it is better for their bottom line that they self-censor, nothing more. We don't have to like it (I don't), but it's their company.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that we have a right to say anything we want doesn't mean that we should. I for one don't believe that our only purpose in life is to grow skins thicker than those around us. I'd rather live in a society of respect than one of self-protection.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

As an agnostic I'm possibly offended that agnostics weren't specifically mentioned in that statement at all. Maybe offended. I mean, I have no real proof one way or the other.

So you're of the Heisenberg sect?

Re:The media really are pussies

[severoon]

Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like. It's a phase (and they aren't nearly as bad as we were back then, really) -- it's a transition phase and we need to help them go through it; baby steps.

If I were Muslim, I think I would be pretty offended at this kind of condescension. I prefer to respect Muslims by treating them like adults capable of understanding the world in which they live. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the tone of the following message would go over: No! Murder bad! Bad Muslim!

Re:The media really are pussies

[interkin3tic]

So you're of the Heisenberg sect?

Hmm... "The determination of whether or not there is an afterlife necessarily disturbs the investigator's life, and vice versa"?

Re:The media really are pussies

[Codename Dutchess]

A bit redundant there, with 'sensible atheists', aren't we?

Re:The media really are pussies

[ArcherB]

Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like. It's a phase (and they aren't nearly as bad as we were back then, really) -- it's a transition phase and we need to help them go through it; baby steps.

Sorry, I'm afraid you are wrong there. The knights of the Crusades were at least close to the military might and technology of the Muslims they attacked. Do you really think that the Muslims of today would be any less brutal if they had a military on par with the west or even the east? Hell, look at how they treat their own for a small clue as to how they would treat you.

Re:The media really are pussies

[bertoelcon]

Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like.

Weren't the Muslims a part of the Crusades?

Re:The media really are pussies

[hyades1]

I'm not much for applauding and saying, "Me, too", but I can't help with agree 100%. If you weren't already at 5, I'd give you another mod point.

Since, as you say, the media are pussies, perhaps it's time for a more grassroots approach. What would the poor darlings do if cartoons of a certain prophet engaging in an excessively friendly act with a camel started popping up all over the Free World? On walls, on websites, inserted into newspaper boxes...everywhere. And if The Diva Formerly Known As Prince can adopt a symbol as his name, I'm pretty sure we could develop a nice, easy-to-draw symbol that means "the prophet buggers barnyard critters" fairly easily.

Maybe a little desensitization is in order?

Re:The media really are pussies

[Darkness404]

The crusades weren't fought over religion, they were fought over land. But how do you convince people in the 1100s to fight? Say that you are doing it in the name of God and grant them forgiveness of any sins. It was a way of getting people to fight, propaganda. It would be like saying today fight to "keep America free", we aren't fighting for our freedom in our wars (there would be no way that Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam would threaten the security of the US in a mass scale and any terrorist group could attack wars in Afghanistan or not) yet its good for rallying mass support. Same thing with the crusades, it was just a way of convincing people to fight.

Religion is simply something people generally hold in esteem, anything that people esteem they will fight for. It isn't any problems of religion that the Crusades take place, they could have rallied an atheist population by saying they can get gold, fame, sex, etc. Look at the holocaust, fought in the name of "science", the Soviet prison camps fought in the name of state, etc.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Beezlebub33]

You don't have to like it. But, if you don't like it, are you going to kill someone or threaten to kill someone? Free speech is almost the ultimate cultural value because without it, you don't really have any other freedoms.

Islam is a dog's religion and Muhammad was a child rapist. (-- this comment brought to you by the 'just-to-prove-a-point department').

Re:The media really are pussies

[fotbr]

Thanks to our thoughtcrime department, that would be considered a crime in the states, under the label of being "harassment", with the additional modifier of being a "hate crime".

Re:The media really are pussies

[OrwellianLurker]

As an Ignostic I am unsure whether or not I am offended, as I cannot decide define offended.

Re:The media really are pussies

[telomerewhythere]

An even more important part of free speech is the right to attack and ridicule any belief and any person.

it would be nice if their followers had but one throat and my hands were on it.

Please reconcile.

Re:The media really are pussies

[cyberworm]

No! Murder bad! Bad Muslim!

That's my chicken pot pie!

Re:The media really are pussies

[maxume]

How much history do you want to look at? Wandering tribes were pretty democratic, and if things weren't democratic enough for you, no one was going to stop you from wandering somewhere else.

Re:The media really are pussies

[anarche]

"No one has the right to live without being shocked, no one has the right to spend their life without being offended." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=player_embedded).

A very important part of free speech is the ability to make fun of things, including, maybe even especially, the things people hold sacred.

I wish I had mod points now.

I'd also like to point out that - while certain people may whinge - CC are the censors here.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Toze]

As for the superstitions of the desert, it would be nice if their followers had but one throat and my hands were on it.

Because they're all so violent, right?

Re:The media really are pussies

[inasity_rules]

Actually, if you are fair and objective, you'll realise that 99% of the time, these things are caused by individuals abusing the power which religion erroneously gives them. The problem is not religion, the problem is greedy corrupt people. If you take away their tool, they'll use another(what do you think politics is?). It is thus illogical to attack religion based on that reason. I suggest you find another.

And while you may say atheism can not be abused in this way, you run into a small problem. Atheists in general are either very intelligent (and thus not as open to abuse) or very lazy (and thus easy to use and abuse). Converting the world to atheism's philosophy won't help you in the slightest unless you start killing off the stupid (which would be an abuse of atheism using the intelligent.) There are many attack vectors here. Anyhow, stop ranting against religion and start ranting against greedy fools.

For the record, I am a Christian, but I do have a lot of respect for your viewpoint, even if I believe it is wrong.

Re:The media really are pussies

[discord5]

A bit redundant there, with 'sensible atheists', aren't we?

Well, there are those crazy atheists that have assigned an entity to represent disbelief in a higher power and have begun to worship it. That doesn't make any sense.

Re:The media really are pussies

[mcgrew]

As an agnostic I'm possibly offended that agnostics weren't specifically mentioned in that statement at all. Maybe offended. I mean, I have no real proof one way or the other.

Then maybe you should kill him. Or maybe not.

Re:The media really are pussies

[couchslug]

"Because they're all so violent, right?"

War is an appropriate reply to war. Note that peaceful opposition is utterly ineffective against Islam. The only methods that work at all are those of secularists like Kemal Ataturk.

Modern revolutionary movements appreciated the toxicity and backwardness of religion. Indeed, the praiseworthy quality of the Bolsheviks and ChiComs was/is that they were willing to fight the backwardness of religion by killing off the religious. If important change cannot be done peacefully and must be done, there is no reason not to use force. If you cannot reason with an extreme political opponent, kill him and take power.

No matter what else the Commies did, attacking and destroying old, rotten, religious systems helped move Russia and China into the modern age. Chinese have never been better off (China was a ruin in 1948), and Communism there served a useful transitional function paving the way for Chinese economic and social success. It freed China from foreign domination. Russia was saved from conquest by Bolshevism and turned into a modern industrial power. That was well worth offing the Czar and his superstitionist supporters.

We in the modern West forget the violence required to pry the fingers of religionists from the levers of power. The current vision of superstitionists as tame ignores what it took to tame them and de-link "imaginary friend cultists" from government. The rebellious youth of Iran, OTOH, look the ogre of religion in the face every day.

Re:The media really are pussies

[I'm not really here]

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. I have a friend who gets so offended by stuff in Family Guy, but I just laugh because they poke fun at things I can identify with, and I have the ability to laugh at myself, my faith, and even my God. Life is funny, and if we're made in the image of God, then God loves a good joke!

I fully expect to arrive in heaven, stand at the gates, and have God stand there and say... hrm... let's see... nope not on the list. Cast him out!" just to see the look on my face before he laughs and opens the doors to heaven.

Re:The media really are pussies

[Bigjeff5]

Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like.

I don't know if you know this, but the Crusades began because Muslims were slaughtering Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem.

See a pattern?

Now, you're absolutely right that after that part was over the Crusaders came back and started killing "non-believers" in Europe and the like, but the Muslims were at the heart of the Crusades. They've been at the heart of all violence in the Middle East for at least the last thousand years, and a lot of countries down there are not much different than they were a thousand years ago.

Re:The media really are pussies

[mrdoogee]

I'm an existentialist and believe your post is meaningless. [/dead horse beating]

Re:The media really are pussies

[BobMcD]

As for the superstitions of the desert, it would be nice if their followers had but one throat and my hands were on it.

So, just to recap:

Violence against those practicing free speech = bad.

Violence against those practicing free religion = good?

Re:The media really are pussies

[ted_smiles]

This is just more proof that Islam does not integrate into societies, it replaces them.

Re:The media really are pussies

[zippthorne]

Many Muslims are in a situation similar to what we went through with Crusades and the like.

They're living under the constant fear of steadily advancing muslim invaders?

Re:The media really are pussies

[sjames]

What the media needs to learn first is that most what most people think of as Muslims are actually a very small but extremely vocal minority of Muslims. The majority are as rational as anyone else.

It also needs to learn that a lot of the extremism is not really Islam at all, just local customs being treated as part of the religion and parts of the religion being conveniently ignored by custom (kinda like you can get a loan in most Christian countries in spite of the prohibition of usury).

The terrorists have won

[Anonymous Coward]

The heavily censored version of episode 201 that aired last night has a lot of people angry, including the show's creators.

The terrorists have won.

Re:The terrorists have won

[gyrogeerloose]

The terrorists have won.

They won on October 26, 2001, the day that George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act into law.

Re:The terrorists have won

[SamSim]

No, that was the day that the USA lost. "The terrorists" have an entirely different set of victory conditions - most of them not yet satisfied, although it depends greatly on the terrorist - and it's not a zero-sum game. If they cared about your personal freedoms they would have hit the Statue of Liberty.

Re:The terrorists have won

[knappe duivel]

The terrorists have won.

Good. Can somebody please tell them, maybe they will stop fighting.

Re:The terrorists have won

[gyrogeerloose]

mod up for more limp-wristed criticisms of a former president? lame. i think that's the point of this whole discussion. critiquing people who won't fire back is weak.

That's pretty funny, seeing how it's coming from somebody too "limp-wristed" to even sign his own nick to it.

In any case, I'm not sure where you got the idea I was criticizing Bush. All I did was make a simple, indisputable statement of fact: on October 26, 2001, GW Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act into law.

Something funny about all this

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else read that and think why would Comedy Central bleep the ending? It sounds like maybe they are stirring up their own controversy

Re:Something funny about all this

[eln]

Maybe since the ending speech (according to the link) was all about intimidation and fear, Comedy Central thought it would be too blatantly hypocritical to actually air it.

Re:Something funny about all this

[sznupi]

I think I wish now for a full episode made of blips, essentially...

Re:Something funny about all this

[Volguus Zildrohar]

It never even occurred to us that that ending wasn't a joke. My wife and I thought it was pretty funny, sort of like Kyle's big speech to the Visitors, and everything else in both parts had been a festival of self-reference.

Re:Something funny about all this

[rm999]

Yeah, I was wondering that too, I'm surprised more people didn't catch the weirdness of it.

I can think of two things: Matt and Trey are messing with us, or someone at Comedy Central was trying to be funny. I doubt they want to bring too much attention to the controversy, because it only makes them look bad. As a cable channel, there is no sort of requirement that they have to censor anything.

Re:Something funny about all this

[szo]

I still think it was a joke. Mark my words :)

Mohamad == pedo bear

[QuantumG]

Come get me you extremist fucktards.

Re:Mohamad == pedo bear

[QuantumG]

http://quantumg.net/OhMaome.jpg

Been there since Mar 23 2008...

Re:Mohamad == pedo bear

[El_Muerte_TDS]

How would anyone know if the guy in that picture even is the prophet Muhammad?
Is it simply the association? So, :) is Muhammad smiling?

Re:Mohamad == pedo bear

[splatter]

you couldn't tell Muhammad has wings..... lol

Re:You don't say

[eln]

According to the statement by Matt and Trey, the final speech (which in the broadcast version was nothing but an extremely long beep) didn't even mention Muhammed, it was about intimidation and fear. Comedy Central really went way overboard on the censoring of this episode. Hopefully whenever their current contract expires they can take South Park to a network that isn't run by a bunch of gutless cowards (if such a thing even exists anymore).

Personally, I thought the whole two-part episode kind of sucked anyway, but the overzealous censoring of the second part was just ridiculous.

The terrorists win!

[NetNinja]

And this is what happens when you let terrorists censor you.

Re:The terrorists win!

[Anonymous Coward]

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. -Benjamin Franklin

Re:The terrorists win!

[Kozz]

And this is what happens when you let terrorists censor you.

It's more (worse) than that. I know you didn't literally mean what you said (as the terrorists don't run Comedy Central... I don't think). It is that CC is censoring its own broadcast out of fear, not because of a decree from another governing entity.

Re:The terrorists win!

[ArtemaOne]

Yeah, down with censorship! As I click external links to find them blocked on my US government system.

Re:You don't say

[MrMista_B]

Because while Christians will turn the other cheek, and Buddhists likewise, Muslims will fucking kill you.

1984?

[adbge]

This kind of draconian censorship is unacceptable. Go tell Comedy Central why you'll no longer be watching:

http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml

Re:1984?

[Beelzebud]

On please. Go back and re-read 1984, and tell me how a comedy channel is the same thing as a fascist dictatorship... If this was government censorship, you might have a point.

Re:1984?

[flabordec]

Man the guns! Destroy this fascist, draconian dictatorship that is Comedy Central! Do not allow them to control what we think by bleeping parts of episodes they air just because they received a death threat!! Because, you know, adbge would continue making fun of Islamics even if they threatened to kill him.

Re:1984?

[MobyDisk]

Better yet: send them death threats. That's what the Muslim community(*) did, and Comedy Central caved. We should all tell them that we are Muslims and the beeping sound offends our religion and we will kill them with the mighty blade of the flying spaghetti monster!

Or better yet - tell them we are Muslims and that censoring the episode was not enough. We know that those sounds were meant to make fun of Muhammad and we will kill them anyway.

(*) Not all of the Muslim community - just their most vocal representatives.

Re:1984?

[VoiceInTheDesert]

I just went to that link and submitted this:

"I just want you guys to know that in bowing to pressure from a bunch of religious radicals, you have successfully offended millions of Americans who believe freedom of speech needs to be preserved and protected. You have failed the american people and let the agents of terror dictate your actions.

Now that you have set this precedent, radicals know that all they have to do to get their way is to threaten with violence. Thanks for setting back hundreds of years worth of progressive thought and returning us to the days when the church gets to dictate what the masses can view."

Re:1984?

[TheRaven64]

You might need to re-read 1984 yourself. One of the points was that the Party itself was not actually that powerful; it appeared so because most people were willing to censor their own speech and even thoughts (see: doublethink). The Party only needed to worry about the people who weren't.

Re:1984?

[mikael_j]

Ah, the classic "it's not censorship if it's not the government" argument.

The problem is that if all the major sources of entertainment and news choose to censor themselves then you still end up with a situation that's just as bad as government censorship, it's just the reasons for censorship that are different (money + fear instead of ideology).

Re:1984?

[maxwell demon]

The 1984 style censorship isn't to beep over it, it's to change it to say whatever is desired.

Re:1984?

[couchslug]

Don't hate Comedy Central, hate Islam.

Re:1984?

[Hurricane78]

Uuum, what government? We live in a industrial feudalism, if you haven’t noticed already...
The government is just their industry forum for negotiations. We are their main resource. (Ever heard of a “human resources department”?) And the media and government agencies are the cowboys, dairy farmers and doctors, controlling us cattle, so we give the maximum of our work in that hamster wheel, in return for shiny glass beads from of our IKEA catalogs, that we don’t need.

Re:1984?

[CaseCrash]

(money + fear instead of ideology).

money + fear is an ideology

Re:1984?

[HolyLime]

Thank you. I don't know if it will make a difference but I just sent them this via that form. "I was very very disappointed at the recent episode of South Park that you censored. I watch comedy central because of the wide editorial and creative room you give all of the your shows. In trying not to alienate an audience that does not watch Comedy Central you have in effect alienated the current audience that does. I am not happy with what you have done and probably will not be watching Comedy Central in the future. Please have a good day with the new sterilized humor that is starting to permeate the network."

Re:1984?

[Imrik]

I think his point was more it's not 1984ish unless its government. Which is true from some standpoints but ignores the similarities that the GP was referring to.

Re:1984?

[Lemmy Caution]

I was waiting for someone to make the "it's only censorship if the government does it" bullshit line, because this situation shows just how asinine that line of reasoning is. Apparently, the threat of getting fined or not being allowed to sell your stuff to kids is censorship (if the government does it), the threat of getting fired or blown up isn't (if the government isn't doing it.)

Re:1984?

[shugdoo]

Thanks for the link. My offering: Thanks for the link. My offering: Dear Upper Mgmt. Kneejerks, You just hit a new height of hypocrisy. Not supporting 1/3rd of your network's value will prove to be a bad call. That new twaddle, aka Ugly Americans, will not be pulling you out of this tailspin. Good luck with this one. Danny Austin, TX

Re:1984?

[WCguru42]

Don't hate Comedy Central, hate Islam.

No, I'll hate Comedy Central. They have allowed South Park to ridicule nearly all forms of religious, political and ideological belief and then they break because some nut job says it's wrong. South Park is meant to be abrasive, brash, offending and at times, thought provoking. Just because some people are going to be upset is no reason to censor the show. I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who are upset with certain episodes of South Park. I'm sure the Scientology people are upset with South Park. A lot of people in politics in the USA are probably upset with South Park. Deal with it, First Amendment*, Fuck Yeah.

* I know this is only a First Amendment issue ideologically and not legally.

Re:1984?

[drinkypoo]

"and let the agents of terror dictate your actions. "

Typical liberal BS exaggeration.

Please demonstrate, using the dictionary, which word was an exaggeration. I can justify every word in that sentence, and it wasn't even mine.

You are limited in your actions every day of your life by common sense, by laws, by morality.

I am not limited by laws, they only provide for consequences for my actions. Common sense and morality are what limit my actions, yes. But given that you lump the three together I wonder if you actually understand any of the words you're using.

There is one aspect we Muslims make a principal stand on, and that is of course the action that you are choosing.

Okay... threatening someone is an action. Censoring content is an action.

"Oh, my god! If we let them win this, they are going to take away our freedoms!" That's your train of thought, liberal moron, no different from the train of thought of inbred Fox News audience.

Uh, no. That's not the argument at all. But thanks for jerking your knee, proving that you are in the same class as the typical Faux News viewer. The argument is that if we give up our freedoms, we won't have them any more. I think it's pretty straightforward.

Re:1984?

[Neoprofin]

I didn't tell them that I'll no longer be watching, because I usually watch SP online anyway, but I do think it's important to write in and tell them just how angry you are with their cowardice and the missed opportunity to stand up for free speech.

Re:1984?

[Bigjeff5]

I don't know if you know this, but Feudalism is a form of government and economic system (kinda like Communism). It generally has a Monarch, but there is no reason it can't have an Oligarchy or Republic at its head instead.

Re:1984?

[sjames]

Ah, the classic argument.

Agreed! Censorship dictated by any group is bad. The "it's not censorship if it's not the government" crowd should ask themselves, if you're shot in the head do you only die if it was on purpose? Do you still die if the shooter wasn't the gun's rightful owner? If the gun was banned?

Re:You don't say

[Le Marteau]

> All because people are scared of offending muslims.

The are not scared of offending Muslims, per se. They are scared of being murdered. Their fear is not unfounded and is with precedent.

Muslims... You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

Muslims told everyone else how to behave and what they are allowed to say?

You don't say?

I thought it was a coincidence that many of the most theocratic, oppressive, and evil regimes justify their existence with Islam.

This was of course the point of the South Park episode. They insulted every religion in the world in that episode, and only one threatened violence and managed to get their bit censored. It's 2010 and Islam is stuck in the 1300s. It's impact on the world is violent, pushy, and fascist.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[Peach Rings]

They did make fun of Lao Tzu (Taoism) in Super Best Friends.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[interkin3tic]

You're pretty ignorant if you believe they offended "every religion in the world"

Sure, not specifically, but just the episode where Mel Gibson craps on cartman's face, to pick one at random might have offended some Zoroastrian out there.

Anyway, let's reserve "pretty ignorant" for when we're not talking about a show on comedy central. Most of us don't consider "pretty ignorant" to mean "havent' watched every single southpark episode." It's an easy generalization to make.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[Nerdfest]

Those minor religions are the Chromes and Safaris of the religious spectrum ... in more ways than one too, I think.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[AnonymousClown]

Confucianism is not a religion. Toaism - that depends on the practitioner. Some treat it as a philosophy, others treat it as a way of life (pun intended), and there a few who do treat it like a religion - in the Eastern sense.

Of course they didn't offend every other religion because they went after the most popular.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[NeutronCowboy]

There are more religions in the world than days have passed since South Park started airing. What's your point?

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[_Sprocket_]

You're pretty ignorant if you believe they offended "every religion in the world". *cough* Confucianism *cough* Daoism *cough* unimaginable other amounts of religions based off of Native American, African, tribes or other versions of Christianity, Judiasm, etc. etc. etc.

They were offended by not being included.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[he-sk]

I though the point of the episode was to rehash all the other jokes they have done in the 199 episodes prior.

Incidentally, I found the beeped version of the speech at the end okay, especially since it was interrupted was all the "That's right children." I thought that was hilarious.

But the beeping out of someone mentioning Mohammed was weird especially after watching last week's episode back-to-back.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[ArcherB]

It's 2010 and Islam is stuck in the 1300s. It's impact on the world is violent, pushy, and fascist.

That is unfair to the majority of modern and progressive muslims. The image of Islam we all see is distorted by media coverage, and muslims are usually as irritated as we are by violent, pushy, and fascist muslims.

Maybe so, but the image of planes flying into buildings, reporters being beheaded, gays being hung, women getting stoned because they had the audacity to get raped and endless missiles launched into neighborhoods from elementary schools tend to leave more of an impression than the puff piece about the Muslim immigrant who saved a kitten from a tree.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[Ambvai]

Also, philosophies aren't religions.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[keeboo]

It's 2010 and Islam is stuck in the 1300s. It's impact on the world is violent, pushy, and fascist.

That is unfair to the majority of modern and progressive muslims. The image of Islam we all see is distorted by media coverage, and muslims are usually as irritated as we are by violent, pushy, and fascist muslims.

Yeah, it's _always_ this same "they are the exception" bullshit.

When was the last time the "good" muslims did anything about the "bad" ones?
In the best case, when shit happens, some few muslims go to TV to say "hey, this is bad and we don't do it normally, okay?" while the rest remains silent.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[mapkinase]

"It's 2010 and Islam is stuck in the 1300s. "

Hopefully, in 700s (FTFY).

Your remark is based on the wrong concept that humanity made a progress in every aspect, both technological and ideological. Though it is hard to deny the first part, the second part is 100% ideological perception.

Morally, ideologically it has been nothing but regress. Humanity lowers itself every minute.

"and only one threatened violence and managed to get their bit censored. "

You are exactly right, boy. The only one. Because that's the only true religion, and it is the only true religion that stands for humanity, for real values that has been there from the times of Adam, not your bogus liberal inventions of French revolution and women lib.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[Bigjeff5]

You haven't watched nearly enough SouthPark man, I seriously doubt there is a single religion they haven't insulted. The spend most of their time on the big ones, but they spread the "love" quite a lot.

Re:Muslims... You don't say

[Philip_the_physicist]

gays being hung,

I think they would, on the whole, like that. Hanged, on the other hand, not so much.:)

Re:You don't say

[jayhawk88]

It's also interesting in the way they chose to censor it. Tom Cruise got censored when he "received Mohammed's goo", but it was done in the exact same way Mohammed in the bear suit was, implying a joke. Presumably Matt and Trey did not have Tom transform into Mohammed, since not showing Mohammed was the joke to begin with; perhaps he transformed into a bear suit too or something along those lines. Whatever was really there, CC had no need to censor the image of Cruise, since Muslims would not have had a problem with Cruise in a bear suit or whatever. Censoring him in the same way was, again, a joke.

As for the end speech being entirely bleeped, if it's true that it didn't mention Mohammed at all, then bleeping it makes no sense at all. This is the network that had no problem with 216 utterances of the word shit after all; what could Stan and Kyle possibly been saying that was so offensive? Again, it seemed like this was a joke, poking fun at the whole censorship thing.

What's disturbing here is that, if it's true CC made these censors without Matt and Trey's knowledge, then they were not only censoring, but adding or changing jokes in the episode as well. Censorship is one thing, but creatively changing an episode...I would think that from the creators eyes that would be even worse, and I can't believe CC would dare do such a thing.

Despite the statement, I'm still not convinced this isn't all some big hoax or joke. The censoring done in the episode just doesn't make any sense, unless it's part of the episode, jokes about the whole situation.

Free Publicity Rules!

[Beelzebud]

To me this smells like one giant PR stunt.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[BitHive]

Or maybe stupid shit just happens. You don't need a conspiracy for everything. Let me guess, Ron Paul supporter?

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[AnonymousClown]

Or maybe stupid shit just happens. You don't need a conspiracy for everything. Let me guess, Ron Paul supporter?

It's interesting that you brought Ron Paul into this. He IS making waves and getting more and more support in the Republican party. How do we know that you're not some Republican operative who's trying to make all of the Paul supporters look like fools? Or even a Democratic operative that's covering the party's bases and is trying to knock Paul out now?

Then again, you may have masterminded the Kennedy assassination with Marilyn Monroe and your trying to pin another assassination on Ron Paul and his supporters.

Then again, you could also be a space alien trying to cause a stir down here for an invasion via your other operative Paul.

I'm on to you Mister!

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Yes and Ron Paul's ideas are entirely against the mainstream of American opinion. Even more so if people figure out he wants to gut Government to the point where it's useless.

Ron Paul doesn't need to enter the 21st century, he needs to enter the 20th century. Hayek was wrong. Period. Can we move on as a people now?

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[jasmusic]

Hayek was hardly wrong, you're seeing his predictions on the verge of playing out as we speak: of higher central authority leading to ever-decreasing personal freedom.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Or maybe stupid shit just happens. You don't need a conspiracy for everything. Let me guess, Ron Paul supporter?

Or is that he wants you to think?

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[FredFredrickson]

I agree with the publicity stunt. I mean, it was kinda obvious-

#1. They use the same censorship bar for Tom Cruise when he get's Mohamad's "goo". Clearly the censorship bar was a plot device

#2. One of the enemies was Barbra Streisand, clearly making a reference to the Streisand effect. I think their goal was to get more attention on Mohamad with censorship.

I don't think it was only for their own publicity- I think it was for irony.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Hayek was wrong that the market place would take care of itself. We know now, as we knew then, that the marketplace was full of flawed individuals with partial knowledge. it can't take care of itself. it needs oversight. That's where Hayek is painfully wrong. Libertarianism seems to be built upon the idea of not just financially screwing the poor, but the poor hoping to catch a lucky break and be the screwer not the screwed.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[jasmusic]

You're giving the siren call of a communist and that brings a world full of hurt. You see, the central planners trying to think on everyone's behalf end up having the least knowledge of all and are the least competent to even attempt the task.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[dominious]

you accidentally

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Central planning is pretty bad too. A centralized Government really can't tell people what they should consume. However, telling people what they can't consume and what they can't produce is a different story.

For instance, Glass-Steagall stated that you can't have investment banks also sell product financial products tied to their investments and the investments of their customers on that arm(This is what happened with Magnetar; they put together financial instruments that they also insured against; creating a huge conflict of interest; Glass-Steagall would've prevented Magnetar from existing in a way that it could do such a thing legally). It's not telling people they *have* to buy certain instruments, just that instruments put onto the market must fulfill certain criteria before going onto the market.

Putting together guidelines for how the market shouldn't act in general versus telling what IS going to happen. Pure capitalism and pure communism are both unsustainable. The Market nor the Government can do it all by itself. However, since the 70's, everyone's been trying to gut Government interaction with the market, so we need to start tilting the scales the other way; this is why I'm a liberal(I'd be a moderate in any other god damned country; my views are far more say, Labour than Lib. Dem. Then again, Labour's had a hard rightwing swerve lately AFAIK).

Too big to fail is largely a Libertarian exercise as well. When there's no oversight and regulation from external, uninterested bodies, monopolies will spring up. The powerful will exert it's power over others to corner a market simply by strong arm tactics. Standard Oil did it, so did Microsoft. It's like being at a no-limit poker table, and everytime you move in, there's a guy who's really large stacked and he puts you all in. Sometimes it works and you double up. More often than not, you're strong armed out of a hand.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[jasmusic]

Microsoft was not a monopoly. Its competitors were simply not putting their best foot forward as they are today. Same story with Standard Oil. You had a solution looking for a problem.

The only true monopolies that exist are the ones in bed with the government, either explicitly (USPS, Fed, etc) or implicitly via regulations that impair small companies. The market was set to punish the large financial companies for their stupidity and this would have been a shocking deterrent to future adventures...but what saved them? The market? No, the incompetent and meddling central government who deemed them "too big to fail". But in case you didn't notice, there are monthly reports of small banks being shut down without a whimper. Same thing with GM and Chrysler who were about to get mauled for getting in bed with the financially irresponsible unions. Who saved them? The market?

Governments exist to protect natural rights of defense and freedom and that is it. Anything beyond that is a degree of central planning.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[FredFredrickson]

Well I think using this death threat as an excuse to demonstrate the streisand effect is a little better than making the death threat in the first place.. but you're right, people who back southpark might take it too far...

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Governments exist to fulfill the will of the people who put that Government in power(Dictators, Revolutionaries, Monarchs, Theocrats, whatever). In our case, we put the Government in power, and we agree on what the Government does and doesn't do. Governments exist solely as a way to enforce the social contract between each other.

You're also incredibly wrong about monopolies. Microsoft was found guilty of being a monopoly. Even if you don't buy the DoJ's explanation, Microsoft put BeOS out of business when they put their foot down to OEMs not to put BeOS on their machines. That's a textbook case of what monopolistic practices. They acted like a monopoly in the desktop OS business in the 90's.

So was Standard Oil. You really can't tell me that during the Libertarian paradise that was the Gilded Age that the Government was backing Standard Oil.

The USPS *has* to exist, and in the constitution it's explicitly stated this needs to happen. It has a monopoly on delivering mail much like the US Army has a monopoly on using tanks to blow shit up.

My point with the whole "too big to fail" thing is that companies *wind up* that big and intertwined with *out* oversight. And if the market let those firms fail, it would cause a cataclysm in the financial sector like never seen before. If we listened to Hayek instead of Keynes, we'd be sitting in caves trying to figure out which bug is edible because the market would've lead itself to it's own demise.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[BobMcD]

Yes and Ron Paul's ideas are entirely against the mainstream of American opinion.

You'll need to cite this. Few of his ideas were/are that far off base from what most average (read: non-political-zealot) people would want. In fact, the notion that State and Local government is more important than Federal government is very, very, very American.

The parties and the lobbyists disagree, but that doesn't automatically mean that everyone believes the BS they're shoveling. Talk to some normal people about the issues, without labeling where you heard them, and you'll probably be literally shocked to see how much they agree.

Even more so if people figure out he wants to gut Government to the point where it's useless.

Federal government only, which is something people in each of the 50 states support. California is one of the biggest supporters of State's rights, and they're about as far from Ron Paul's other ideas as you're likely to get.

Ron Paul doesn't need to enter the 21st century, he needs to enter the 20th century. Hayek was wrong. Period. Can we move on as a people now?

How are you enjoying that Keynesian-style recession? I don't care much for it, myself.

Anyway, here's hoping my response to your flame encourages you to do a little actual research on the topics. /crossfingers

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[jasmusic]

Governments that merely "fulfill the will of the people" eventually grow to the point where they deprive of the people of everything.

The USPS doesn't *have* to exist. FedEx, duh. UPS, duh. Internet, duh. Pony Express, duh. Handing out Christmas cards at church, duh.

Neither Microsoft nor Standard Oil were monopolies, and you didn't prove that they were. Even the Supreme Court will lie to a person's face.

The fallacy of Keynesianism is that, short of divine wisdom, government spending will never be done efficiently because it will neither reflect every single self-interest of thousands and millions that a free market is based off of, nor accurately sort wants and needs due to artificially inflated means. In layman's terms: the money will be wasted.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

You're seriously telling me that Standard Oil and Microsoft weren't monopolies?

Fuck you.

(Thomas Jefferson, blah blah blah, ridicule, ideas must be distinct before reason can act on them).

Just for the fun though, Standard Oil did hold something like 91% of all US output of oil, and something like 85% of all retail sales of oil. Not only that but they also kept others out of the market through intimidation and economic force. That's a monopoly. Like telling your OEMs, "Ship another OS and we'll make your life a living hell."

The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 explicitly requires the Federal Government establish post offices. The USPS doesn't engage in monopolistic practices when you send mail. The USPS isn't keeping DHL, FedEx, UPS, Airborne Express, or independent couriers from operating in the market.

The fallacy of Keynesianism is that, short of divine wisdom, government spending will never be done efficiently because it will neither reflect every single self-interest of thousands and millions that a free market is based off of, nor accurately sort wants and needs due to artificially inflated means. In layman's terms: the money will be wasted.

What the fuck does this even mean?

Let's say the Federal Government builds a highway, the money's "wasted" because some rich business asshole didn't spend it? Because the Government spent for the common good rather than for the generation of more money?

Money for money's sake is a horrible and greedy way to look at economics. It's this thinking that got us in this situation in the first place.

Asshole.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[jasmusic]

Funny how Linux and MacOSX, even Firefox and Chrome, still seem to thrive in the presence of this scary Microsoft monopoly. And what happened to BeOS when it was purchased? It was given concrete shoes. lol

Nobody but the USPS is allowed to delivery First Class mail. That is a monopolistic federal law. Look it up.

Little to none of the stimulus has been provably spent on highway improvements that anyone actually needed, or that weren't handled from the gas tax fund. It was political slush money. And voters now know it.

"What the fuck does this even mean?" It means you don't know basic economic theory, and because you don't even understand free markets, you surely aren't qualified to speak against free markets. What people do with their money is none of your business. Your concern for other peoples' money reveals you to be the greedy one. But this is common among closet liberals and I am not surprised. What "got us into this mess" was government intervention, deciding that hobos had the right to new homes, and that reckless financial companies had the right to a second life, both on taxpayer dime. People like you deciding how other peoples' money should be redistributed.

For losing your cool, you've pretty much Godwin'd your arguments.

Re:Free Publicity Rules!

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Linux and Mac OS during the time of the trial were actually threatened by Microsoft's monopolistic actions. OEMs were gunshy about releasing Linux machines(still are; but they're far more common now than they were in the 90's when Microsoft was branded a monopoly) and Mac OS was being threatened by Microsoft under pricing Windows on the desktop. Of course, OSX wasn't even out yet, being as how it was 1998.

Linux, Mozilla and other competitors in the tech field largely have been free software products put together by non profits. Yes, OSX is a huge exception to this one, but, in order to build hardware in the 90's, it was either Microsoft's way, or the highway. Which Apple chose.

Yes, the USPS is the only entity that can send first class mail. Great, next you're going to discover that only the cops can arrest people for crime. The postal system is a requirement and a responsibility of the Federal Government. BFD.

It means you don't know basic economic theory, and because you don't even understand free markets, you surely aren't qualified to speak against free markets. What people do with their money is none of your business. Your concern for other peoples' money reveals you to be the greedy one. But this is common among closet liberals and I am not surprised. What "got us into this mess" was government intervention, deciding that hobos had the right to new homes, and that reckless financial companies had the right to a second life, both on taxpayer dime. People like you deciding how other peoples' money should be redistributed.

What people do with their money IS their business. I really don't care, not unless you're planning on polluting the air, commit crimes, destroy property, etc. or paying for the cleanup of your own particular mess.

We got in this situation because federal regulators didn't know that Goldman Sachs and Magnetar were arranging financial products that were defective by design then bet that those products would indeed fail then not informing their customers of said products that they were indeed crap. It was a failure of *lack* of regulation, not in spite of it.

Take your 19th century ideas about capitalism elsewhere you Paulite. You guys want to talk free market but you guys never want to deal with what happens when the obscenely wealthy are allowed to do when they're given carte fucking blanche. You guys never seem to realize that the wealthy have the leverage to screw the middle and lower classes and have since the dawn of time and that now it's worse than ever. How can you forget child labor or Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? Or do you guys furiously pleasure yourselves to the idea of the poor getting screwed because, fuck'em, THAT'S THE WAY ~* FREE MARKETS *~ WORK?

Re:You don't say

[xaxa]

Because while Christians will turn the other cheek

Really? I think someone needs to tell the gun-toting Americans...

Re:Religion: source of all evil

[Paul server guy]

Too bad you posted that AC - Or are you afraid as well?

Pathetic

[kuwan]

What Comedy Central did was absolutely pathetic. Parker & Stone had already self-censored the episode by not actually showing any pictures of Muhammad and the way they did it was absolutely hilarious. But apparently you can't even speak the work "Muhammad" on Comedy Central. That Comedy Central allows them to ridicule anything and everything - any and all other religions are open game - but when it comes to anything Islam-related suddenly there's a whole new set of rules. Hypocrisy and cowardice at its finest.

I hope that the uncensored version makes its way out soon.

Re:Pathetic

[TOGSolid]

The even bigger joke is that they talked about this exact form of censorship a few seasons back and it involved the words the Prophet Muhammed. It just goes to show how on the ball Matt and Trey really are.

Re:Pathetic

[TOGSolid]

Also, did the remove the ganet from this episode because it wet it's nest?

Re:Pathetic

[Aradiel]

For the next episode they should replace every single word in the script with "Muhammad"

Re:You don't say

[StrategicIrony]

I think that's supposed to read

"are supposed to turn the other cheek"

The christianists in the bible belt haven't followed Jeebus for a long ass time.

Re:You don't say

[larry bagina]

I thought the censored speeches at the end was funny (no doubt better than the original feel good stuff) but I think it was wrong for Comedy Central to have done it.

Paging all CC workers

[tesla_reincarnated]

We need someone from the inside to wiki-leak it.

The media makes it worse...

[socz]

This morning I heard "so who is really to blame? The creators of south park who write the offensive satire or those who are making the threats of possible violence and death? Well, obviously those making threats are wrong, but what about the creators?"

So lets see, at least in the United States of America we have the beleif of "Freedom of Speech" right? That means we can dissent when we feel especially strong about something.

So I figure, for anyone who says "the creators are wrong in their satire" just opens the door for "those hippies supporting marijuana" (Viva Marijuana was the sign I saw this morning on the way to work) to also be "censored."

Oh but that's totally different right? Lets move to 'scientology.' Why should they not be allowed to censor people? Political groups? Schools? Religions with abuse scandals? Where/when do we stop censoring?

The best and most straightforward argument I have heard regarding this is:
"South Park has made fun of Christians, Jews, people of different ethnicities and organizations. But none other than the Muslims have threatened violence before." That should tell us where the real problem lies.

From my point of view, when I first saw South Park I was offended (Jesus Christ Vs. Santa Claus). But as time passed and I gave it a chance... eventually viewing it when it came on Comedy Central I enjoyed it. As a matter of fact, I regularly recommend it to people when key issues come up. Such as their red cross/catholic scandal episode.

Finally, what happened with Issac Hayes was tragic but eye opening. He shows that "I can be part of something (great) that covers a lot of subjects - that consequently offend everyone at some point or other, as long as it doesn't offend me or my beliefs."

Re:The media makes it worse...

[Hatta]

So I figure, for anyone who says "the creators are wrong in their satire" just opens the door for "those hippies supporting marijuana" (Viva Marijuana was the sign I saw this morning on the way to work) to also be "censored."

That door has already been opened.

Re:The media makes it worse...

[BobMcD]

There's a bit of a difference between censorship at school and censorship everywhere. Likewise it could very well be determined that children's rights are trodden by their caregivers on a regular basis anyway.

That link is an example of something, but probably not what you're implying.

Re:The media makes it worse...

[Hatta]

If that was the only basis on which they ruled, you'd be right. But they did rule that the content of the speech mattered. That's chilling.

Re:The media makes it worse...

[BobMcD]

Again, though, I read it as only mattering at school.

I asked the question

[Huzzah!]

of a guy who was making and selling intentionally offensive/controversial items (Jesus dildos and the like) why he didn't have a dildo in Mohammed's likeness. He said that he was a coward because he didn't want to die, and making Christians mad was OK because they wouldn't walk up and stab him in the chest.

I infer from that that those who enjoy christian-bashing would quit if the christians started being equally forgiving as followers of Islam are.

Re:I asked the question

[Areyoukiddingme]

The world used to work that way. We call that period in history the Dark Ages for a reason...

Re:I asked the question

[/dev/trash]

I guess he's never heard of McViegh, Or Ruby Ridge Or David Koresh.

Re:I asked the question

[pandrijeczko]

A cold shiver ran down my spine as the images of Donny Osmond and L. Ron Hubbard-shaped dildos entered my mind...

Re:I asked the question

[Obfuscant]

I guess he's never heard of McViegh, Or Ruby Ridge Or David Koresh.

I think I know what you thought your point was, but you sort of smacked yourself in the head by your selection of examples. Of the three, only McVeigh was a terrorist of any kind.

Ruby Ridge was a guy trying to keep from being forced by the FBI into committing a crime, which pissed the FBI off enough that they came out to his cabin and shot his dog and his wife.

Koresh was a nutjob who wasn't any danger to the community, who was known in the community, and was known to the local sheriff. The local sheriff offered to help the ATF agents pick up Koresh peacefully, and the ATF ignored Koresh when he was in town by himself. ATF chose to attack the compound, shooting the place up and creating a big issue out of nothing at all. If I recall correctly, ATF was attacking a group who had fewer guns, per capita, than most of the people in Texas.

So, exactly what was your point?

Re:I asked the question

[blackraven14250]

There were 18 just involved in 9/11, and one every couple days in Iraq. Considering the Christian world is bigger than the Muslim world, there's a much higher ratio of nutjobs (who are willing to blow themselves up to kill you) to humans in that part of society.

Re:I asked the question

[countertrolling]

On every day night must fall..

Re:I asked the question

[Toze]

Specifically, we call it that because of the retreat/collapse of Roman civilization- technology, literature, art, demographic decline- and the rise of barbarian cultures. It had nothing to do with the spread of the church, which had been accomplished in the century or two previous to the fall of Rome in the 5th century.

Re:I asked the question

[Bigjeff5]

That's three in the last 50 years.

I can give you more than that with regards to Islam in the last year.

Way to prove the wrong point man. ;)

Re:I asked the question

[BobMcD]

Yes, we do.

How is this relevant?

Re:I asked the question

[BobMcD]

I guess he's never heard of McViegh, Or Ruby Ridge Or David Koresh.

Unfortunately, none of these examples are correct.

Ruby Ridge was a dispute over taxes that resulted in a gunfight. It seems clear that the Feds shot first anyway, and there may not have been any bloodshed at all were it handled differently.

Waco was a dispute over taxes (specifically firearm tax stamps) that resulted in a gunfight. Again it seems clear that the Feds shot first, and again there may not have been any bloodshed at all were it handled differently.

The Oklahoma City bombing was somewhat in response to these, but was mostly the result of radicalization in a certain sector of the public for political reasons.

Abraham Lincoln was on McVeigh's teeshirt when he was arrested, not Jesus Christ.

Re:I asked the question

[/dev/trash]

So you're defending these scum? Typical.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's supposed to read

"are supposed to turn the other cheek"

The christianists in the bible belt haven't followed Jeebus for a long ass time.

Sure, but by that same token, I seriously doubt the Koran explicitly advocates killing people indiscriminately.

The article is "censored" too

[nawitus]

Well, I live in Finland, and http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3878 gets redirected to some .fi site which just gives an error "Due to copyright and other legal reasons, South Park video content cannot be viewed outside the United States.". So basically I can't even read their news section or TFA. Anyone have a mirror?

Re:The article is "censored" too

[Dunbal]

Try this link, mate. Greetings from Costa Rica. It worked for me.

Re:The article is "censored" too

[Mashiki]

Posted on: 04.22.10
A Statement from Matt and Trey

In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it.

That's it in the entirity. Try going to http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/ they have most of the same stuff posted there.

Re:The article is "censored" too

[nawitus]

I know slashdot readers don't bother to read the article, but not reading the comment you're replying to is taking it to far. I specifically never said anything about videos, I was talking about the news and therefore the article itself.

Re:The article is "censored" too

[TheMeuge]

The link contains the video, but it's censored just like the TV version.

Re:You don't say

[CannonballHead]

Turn-other-cheek is generally taken to refer to personal insults and the like.

And I see no logical reason to assume that because X says he is Y, that all Y are like X or that all Y even accept that X really is Y... nor, for that matter, any logical reason to lump X into Y just because X claims he is Y. I can claim to be an atheist that believes in God, but that doesn't mean most people will believe me.

Re:You don't say

[Just Some Guy]

Really? How many death threats have they gotten from making fun of Jesus and Christians, and how many episodes were pulled or censored in response?

Color me surprised

[Bemopolis]

Another religious Southern white dude ruins America. Shocker. At least this one isn't president.

Re:You don't say

[uncanny]

Why is this modded troll? are you kidding me? maybe the "nerds" on here get the luxury of working only with other nerds, however i have to work with two conservative, gun crazy people who sit there and every day complain about "the government is trying to disarm the american people, we need to buy more guns". One day one of them said "we need to just round up all the muslims and shoot them" holy crap, dont realize if you know this, but that's called ethnic cleansing!! Yeah, there are "gun-toting americans" that i'm more afraid to be around then any of the muslims i went to school with! sorry for the rant

The West is running scared

[yorktown]

The fact that Comedy Central engages in censorship should surprise no one. After all, how many major newspapers in the U.S reprinted the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons? Not many. And they refused to print the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons out of fear of what the Muslims would do.

Re:You don't say

[uncanny]

adult swim, it brought back futurama and family guy, why not be the savior of freedom of speech and expression for south park!

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

Both of them do, actually. The Bible advocates stoning many people under various circumstances, and the Qur'an has a few specific instructions for dealing with infidels, including killing apostates.

Re:You don't say

[MightyMartian]

Never the less, there has to be a point where the West stands up for its hard won values, and not just against Islamists, but against governments who are equally terrified of our liberties.

What this whole debacle, and every single time some group or another decides their religious beliefs trump free speech demonstrates is pathetic cowardice and utter immaturity. I truly pity those so frightened of words that they feel they have to threaten violence. I can't imagine being that craven and worthless.

Re:You don't say

[jaxtherat]

RTFK

Re:You don't say

[Rijnzael]

I also doubt that as well. Nonetheless, many Islamic scholars who wish to justify the hatred they feel and the violence they desire against those they perceive as enemies have and continue to advocate such indiscriminate killing. I think this Youtube video adequately describes some of the problems with Islam as a whole: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyNQ1zc-q74

Next Episode...

[Cha0$]

Matt and Trey should make another episode where all the characters start using the name Muhammad as a generic nickname, like dude, and they all call each other Muhammad. Then they should introduce a bunch of random characters as the episode goes on, and one of them is inconspicuously the 'real' Muhammad, but they never say who it is. That should pretty much force Comedy Central to either censor the entire episode or admit what they did was stupid.

Re:Next Episode...

[Hatta]

Bring back Stan's gay dog Sparky with his life partner Mo.

Re:Next Episode...

[Lemmy Caution]

I have a feeling that Comedy Central is going to be getting nothing by Muhammad jokes for the rest of its contract with Stone and Parker.

Why is Islam special?

[adamofgreyskull]

I'm not being funny, but South Park has made fun of a lot of other religions and as far as I know, have not received death threats from any of them. This is what I remember, but you can see for yourself at Wikipedia:

• Atheism
• Christianity - (Jesus's public access show, etc.)
• Mormonism - (Complete deconstruction/mockery of the articles of faith, mockery of John Smith)
• Catholicism - (General mockery, representation of priests as homosexual paedophiles, queen spider controlling the religion)
• Scientology - (Do I need to elaborate?)

What's more, they've even depicted Muhammad before!! In the episode Super Best Friends. It boggles the mind that followers of a religion of love can be so hateful over something so mind-bogglingly ridiculous.

Re:Why is Islam special?

[Dunbal]

Hell, in the same episode they have a "Jesus", "Moses", "Krishna", "John Smith", "Lao Tze", etc. It's not like Mohammed was singled out.

Re:Why is Islam special?

[shinzawai]

Don't forget Seaman (and Swallow) ! snicker snicker snicker

Re:You don't say

[Xeno man]

Censor shit and fuck, that is expected and acceptable. What they never done before is censor the word "Muhammed". Muhammed is the most popular given name on Earth and now it is worth censoring? Even one episode before it didn't seem to be a problem and frankly it really ruined the episode. It made it really hard to tell where the joke censoring started and the bullshit censoring ended. I also wasn't 100% sure if the 30 seconds of bleeping at the end were part of the joke or not when I watched it but became really irritating to watch and I'm more irritated now to know Comedy Central were fucking around with the message.

I think that is the best part.

[khasim]

Comedy Central censors a bit about intimidation and fear ... because Comedy Central is afraid of the intimidation by groups claiming offense by other material in that episode.

The next best bit was whether they could depict Mohammad if the depiction was depicted inside a depiction of a truck.

They have sucked in the past, but this was pure genius.

Send your complaints to Comedy Central

[Henry Pate]

Questions and Comments form

Re:Send your complaints to Comedy Central

[WillDraven]

Done and done good sir. I would copy my complaint here but the lameness filter would probably barf on all the capslock.

Maybe I should try again when I haven't had so much rum.

Re:Send your complaints to Comedy Central

[dr.g]

My god, I stole this from something I saw not two weeks ago and already forgot where it was...

Subject: Censorship

Fuck you, cowards.

Strong letter to follow.

Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

If any of you have actually read koran, you will know - it is not only a religious text, intending to govern inner space of an individual. It is a fully laden constitution, complete with civil and criminal law. Everything, ranging from how to distribute inheritance to what 'rights' minorities can have in an islamic society, is tied to concrete rules there. Curiously, most of the rules contained therein are similar with hedjaz tribal customs and laws (particularly quraish tribe) from pro mohammad times.

However, because koran is the 'unchanged' word of god (so says islam), it is unobjectionable. Add to that the fact that islam based on koran is put forth as the only way to live for muslims in koran, it makes islam impossible to coexist with any other social system or law. This is the cause of the friction in countries that are not from middle east, have modern legislations, and muslim minorities.

Egyptian reformers tried to deal with these, tried to 'modernize' islam, and 'reinterpret' koran in the light of modern principles. Results were disastrous. Some of them were killed, some of them had to flee the country, and some of them had to shut up. The struggle continues even to this day. Because koran is put forth as unchanged word of god, it is impossible to find any excuse to reinterpret it. And because you cant reinterpret it, you cant make it compatible with modern principles and views.

And this creates the basis of power for islamism, ie the noticeable segment of muslim organizations that intend to create a one world sharia government. It is impossible to argue against them, because of the above issues.

Ironically, muslims also suffer oppression from this, because the direct interpretation of koran, well, comes up medieval. If you attempt to fully adhere to islam, numerous civil oppressions become inevitable, due to the rulings set in koran. However, mild muslims, a noticeable percentage of muslim population around the world, also cant argue against this, because it is set in koran, and koran is unchanged word of god.

Until these issues are solved, islam will be creating problems and not be able to fit in.

(any muslim slashdotters, please spare me the 'you dont know real islam' shit, i was a muslim once and i studied koran at length, with cross references to mohammad's hadith, unless many of so called muslims which use that bullshit excuse despite not having ever read koran once. so save it).

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[GooberToo]

However, because koran is the 'unchanged' word of god (so says islam)

Interestingly enough, we now have proof that isn't true. Islam maintains the Koran is as it always has been and that it is unchanged, literal transcription of Mohammed. That's why they condemn the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah. Turns out, the Koran has been proved to be in flux as late as 160+ years AFTER Mohamed died.

Naturally Islam is claiming everything from blasphemy to the work of Satan. Some even claim the West created this Koran in question and planted it within the hidden set of text to be "discovered" again so as to discredit Islam and the Koran.

Oddly enough, if you take the Koran as literal truth, it is itself mandating you understand the Koran is not true. Makes me wonder how many people are likely to die in the future as more and more come to understand the book which open touts it is both the literal word and unchanging truth, has in fact been changed by man and remained in flux well after Mohammed's death; which is contrary to ALL Islamic teachings. Even worse, the Koran argues all text which has been changed by man has been corrupted by Satan; which is why they largely ignore the old testament and Torah despite being squarely rooted in it. In short, the Koran it self now argues the Koran is the work of Satan and can not be trusted any more than the Torah or the Old Testament.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[QuantumG]

and? What's your call to action here?

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Bemopolis]

Sounds like Islam is a lot like fundamental Christianity.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Bemopolis]

The fact that none of the authorsof the four Gospels were contemporaries of Jesus hasn't stopped fundamentalist Christian from accepting it as the unerrant word of God.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Locke2005]

If it is impossible to misinterpret the Koran, how come the Sunnis and Shiites disagree so violently with each other? Aren't they both reading the same exact Koran?

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

first, awareness. 'tolerance' wont work with islam. second, politics. middle eastern countries should be pressurized to modernize islam and crack down on extremism. third, worldwide vigilance. there are already numerous islamist organizations which have grown more powerful than small countries and settled in numerous countries of the world.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

it isnt. with even fundamental christianity, you can still come up and argue that what they hold is not a genuine text from god. since all 4 major bibles were edited and decided upon in council of nicea in 325 ad in anatolia by the council called by byzantine emperor. with islam, it isnt the case, it purports to be directly from god.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Bemopolis]

I see you haven't spent much time in the American South.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

they are. but, in addition to koran, second tier of islam is mohammad's hadith, ie what he said. after that, his sunnet comes, which is the way he lived. the separations of sects in islam mainly start from that third point. some follow mohammad's life as example (sunnis) some dont. some follow his relatives (shiites). and so on. fundamentalism from koran remains same in all sects.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[sharkey]

Curiously, most of the rules contained therein are similar with hedjaz tribal customs and laws (particularly quraish tribe) from pro mohammad times.

So your argument is that Islam is dangerous because they are currently anti mohammad?

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Anonymous Coward]

since all 4 major bibles were edited and decided upon in council of nicea in 325 ad in anatolia by the council called by byzantine emperor.

Sorry dude, this is where you lost me. You're going to have to provide a citation for this. I realize Dan Brown has a pronounced efficiency with the English language, but that doesn't mean you can take his words as truth. The First Council (325 AD) of Nicea's major contribution to Christendom was the adoption of widespread, though some of it short-lived, canon law. They also decided that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Solid, authoritative scripture was not discussed here.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[blackraven14250]

Christians recognize the writers as authors that knew the guy who was God's son. There's a big difference.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Anonymous Coward]

And The Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy teaches one how to fly.

It's a book. Written by some guy. As all books are. It doesn't matter if it's the Bible, the Koran, or Adventures Of Lambchop.

If you read a book, any book, and devote your life to its tenets, without question or omission, you have disavowed what makes people diverse and creative. You have escalated an unnecessary struggle; that of individualism versus conformity.

If you want to believe that there is an omniscient entity, fine. If you want to believe that an alien landed in a volcano and is to be worshiped, fine. Even if you want to believe that one group of people is better than another group of people simply because of what they believe, great. But the minute you decide that I am a lesser person simply because I don't believe what you believe, then you have become too wrapped up in your own beliefs to offer anything of value to your fellow man. To denigrate, or threaten, another man for simply not falling into line with your own beliefs is short-sighted and selfish.

Live your life. Enjoy your life. But think for yourself. A book is a book. Written by some guy. Agree with him? Great. But if you're gonna threaten my non-intrusive existence because I might not, fuck you. I'd rather live a short, happy, free-will life than a long, pre-constructed life being controlled by a possibly misguided idea from thousands of years ago.

Wake up.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

no, you havent spent any time in any radical islamist neighborhood in middle east. if you had, you would have known that it is totally a different dimension.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

main point here is this, there is no 'unchanged word of god' in christianity, anything can be contested and objected to.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

and,

have you studied koran ? no it seems. if you had done, you would know. i can easily say after all the cross checking i did, nothing in any other scripture, bar only the stone carved rituals of brutal south american religions can top it in regard to medievalness.

just google quran and read.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

islamism is not a spiritual or metaphysical thing. it is quite worldly, real. it doesnt live in philosophical plane.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

fool.

who are you telling all these tirades to ?

i didnt say i was a muslim or i believed in anything. i described the nature of koran and islam.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

read again and read well.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

'rules to live by', like dont eat this kind of food on this day etc are not the main focus here.

what im talking about, a total set of laws that govern all aspects of life, as i noted, from how to divide inheritance in what percentages to criminal punishments for numerous crimes.

it is a complete constutition with full criminal and civil law.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

Obama ? me ? no.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1726451200/tt1234548

try this one.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Sulphur]

Do they both want to kill Kenny?

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Bemopolis]

So, in a church it's called "the word of God Almighty"; in a court of law it's called "hearsay".

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[raind]

Religion and alcohol - the cause of and solution to all of life's problems....hey it makes some sense. All religions are dangerous as is alcohol.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[shermozle]

If any of you have actually read koran, you will know - it is not only a religious text, intending to govern inner space of an individual. It is a fully laden constitution, complete with civil and criminal law. Everything, ranging from how to distribute inheritance to what 'rights' minorities can have in an islamic society, is tied to concrete rules there.

Sounds a whole lot like how another book reads to me. Except its adherents feel that it's okay to pick and choose which bits they adhere to. You know, gays bad, pork good.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[transwarp]

'rules to live by', like dont eat this kind of food on this day etc are not the main focus here.

what im talking about, a total set of laws that govern all aspects of life, as i noted, from how to divide inheritance in what percentages to criminal punishments for numerous crimes.

it is a complete constutition with full criminal and civil law.

Jewish law has those too.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

Very interesting post. What's your take on the numerous statements by moderate Muslims (usually after some mass-killing by extremists) who say that the Koran teaches tolerance, peace, etc?

Is it something similar to the strange dichotomy of the Christian old (violent, vengeful God)/new (forgiving, turn-the-other-cheek God) testament? Christians will explain that the old is a "shadow" of the new and then smile evangelically as if that explains the bipolar difference.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[nusuth]

It is somewhat similar. For starters Koran does not have a united voice, just like the bible. It says something (fight unbeleivers and kill them during holy months) in a chapter and says completely opposite in the next (the poeople of the book can peacefully coexist with muslims and they should be respected.) The traditional explanation for this is although Koran is the unchanging word of God (therefore timeless) the founding of religion Islam do have a history. The chapters have been revealed to Mohammad in a known order (which is not the "print order" btw.) If two parts of Koran are not compatible, a muslim is supposed to adhere to latest rule and see the previous rule as an intermediate in the process of letting people know of God's will. The previous passage is not wrong, it is still the word of God. However the intent of God had been made clearer later, so previous rule is no longer applicable. This works well enough for some conflicts, such as drinking in moderation and not drinking at all. There is a clear progression in this case, where the actual rule is not drink at all, but that had to be sugar coated for people of Mohammad's time before coming in to full effect. However for stuff like fighting non muslims, there are sevelar conflicting passages without a clear progression to a simple rule. Historical context does not give enough clues to which part is still the rule. This is one source of different interpretations.

The other major source of difference of interpretations are the language and the script. The Arabic of Koran's time is not a current language. There are several passages a native Arabic speaker of today would not understand at all. The problem is compounded because of lack of wovels and punctuation in the Arabic script originally used to record Koran. This tasks the reader of Koran to dechipher heterophonic homographs, deduce which word is actually meant. There is also another problem, due to literary properties of Koran. It is meant to be poetic, with all the literary devices, concealed meanings and so on. Therefore it is imperative to study lingusitic context (not just the ortography or semantics, but also the historic Arabic literature etc) of Koran to understand it properly. Of course there are different schools which attribute different words to passages, different meanings to the same word and different interpretations of to same sentence.

That said, I cannot see how the Koran can be interpreted in a way compatible with the norms of a modern society. You can argue with any specific interpretation of the text with a Muslim, but when all is said and done, your argument still has to fit with Koran, however you interpret it. And there are just too many unambigious passages in Koran that makes a modern society incompatible with Islam.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

I can't think of any response to that, except to say it's sad.

It reminds of the feeling I had this morning listening to the radio (in violent South Africa): a one year old baby was violently beaten by African house-robbers (now in hospital in critical condition). The previous day a 16 yo was violently raped then stabbed to death while on the way to school (the rape and murder is not the shocking part [if you're a South African, you know what I mean]), the hard bit of info to bear was her animal-like screaming which alerted neighbours (they found the African killer sitting on her body having a breather after a job well done - he subsequently ran away).

Sad and mind-numbingly frightening.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[nusuth]

I love guys like you. You say it like what it is, without trying to fool unbelievers to underestimate your potential for ruining their way of life. Islam is the final classical religion today. All others have subsumed into mish-mash of fairy tales, practical ethics and bad existential philosophy. Islam still aspires to rule each and every aspect of human life, as all religions had tried and failed to do. Others have failed more gracefully as they had many different viewpoints right in the holy text from the beginning. When scientific knowledge, newer technologies or novel social realities made some kind of scripture impertinent, it was easier to let go of some part and keep adhering to rest.

Islam resisted because it has a much more unified worldview, thanks to being compiled from older mythology by a single man and records of original compilation (or something very close to it) still surviving. That doesn't make it more right. In fact it makes it easier to show there are plenty of bullshit in Koran, without any easy way of explaining away its inaccuracy. I guess when it is time, Islam will go down very hard. Such hard that what remains as Islam won't be recognizable to us as Islam at all.

(By the way, ex-Muslims with any knowledge call it the "Quran" or "Qur'an", because they generally know a bit of Arabic and can differentiate between Qaf/Kaaf and sometimes make a distinction around the Hamza. Just FYI, the next time you want to pretend being an ex-Moslum.)

I am on the same boat as united and personally use the spelling current company uses. I can't be bothered by providing most close transliteration to make muslims happy at the expense of getting my message across.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[nusuth]

The most comforting fact is that many muslims (at least in Turkey) chose the way of aphaty. Except for their core beliefs, they actively refuse to know more about their religion. Many would use the above mentioned difficulties in interpreting Koran as an excuse for not reading it at all.

BTW, there is also an oral tradition of memorizing and reciting Koran in its entirety that makes reading text easier.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Jason Levine]

The Torah in Judaism is taken as the literal word of God and governs every aspect of a religious Jew's life, from what he eats to how he relates to other people, etc. Yet, the Jews don't have a (recent) history of not being able to fit following their laws in with society at large. That's because Judaism also has a tradition of man being able to interpret "God's laws." If the Torah says "ABC", rabbis can and do study those verses and give reasons why they think it should be interpreted as meaning this or that. They debate it and some follow one interpretation and others follow another interpretation. (Thus the old joke that a Jew stranded on a dessert island builds 2 Temples. One he prays in and one he wouldn't go to if you paid him!) While one rabbi might say the other rabbi is mistaken and doing it wrong, he wouldn't call for that rabbi's death.

A system like this allows rules incompatible with modern life (sacrifices, slavery, stoning for "disrespecting your parents", etc) to be pushed to the side while allowing other laws to adapt to new technological innovations (e.g. is it ok to turn on electrical devices on Shabbat).

It seems like Islam really needs a tradition like Judaism has. They need for Imams to be able to declare formally "this is what this text means" and then peacefully let the people flow one way or another. The sooner they develop something like that, the better for everyone.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Maybe he hasn't, but at least they won't kill him.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[GooberToo]

Of course, all this ignores the fact that a growing body of research seems to indicate that Muslims don't even have the Koran properly translated; to which the newly discovered Koran which proves human changes seems to also further strengthen.

My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur'an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur'anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur'an is not comprehensible, if it can't even be understood in Arabic, then it's not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur'an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not--there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.

-Puin

In other words, things don't make sense because its been mistranslated. A properly translated Koran is now available which not only makes the firth sentence make sense but also makes the bulk of the Koran make sense - versus its ambiguous and poetic, traditional reading.

Literally, Islam and the Koran is a hot bed of research. Sadly the people who are doing this research constantly receive death threats. Regardless, the research is being done so by accredited researchers. And at the end of the day, it would appear the entire Islamic body doesn't even understand their own cannon and that the cannon it self forcefully claims it is itself not cannon.

Of course, getting the Islamic word to understand they've been studying the wrong translation is a literal Pandora's box - ignoring the fact the Koran has been changed by man.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[GooberToo]

Opps - messed up the link

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[GooberToo]

And here's an excellent video on the subject. For example, the corrected translation means after you die you get grapes rather than virgins. That may sound funny today but when placed in proper historical and idealogical context, it makes absolute sense.

This is of course, contrary to the incorrect assertions in the Wikipedia quotes which serve as follow up to the quote I provided in another reply.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[superstick58]

The same argument you use for the bible can be used for Koran. Actually any religious text MUST have some human intervention in it's development by logical analysis. However, many christians DO believe the Bible is the True Word of God and the text of the Bible itself confirms this in many instances. Yet for some reason, christians have a more reasonable approach at the moment to practicing their beliefs (although in the past Christians were equally violent and fundamentalist).

Anyway, I'm not sure where this conversation is going. I guess the GP was making the point that muslims are so unreasonable in their beliefs because they believe that the Koran is true word of god. However, That cannot be true because other faiths especially christians believe the same with thier own holy books.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

koran cannot be 'interpreted', if one takes koran as unchanged word of god.

it openly states itself that it is unchanged word of god, and both the shepherd and the scholar can understand it with ease. it is a book that is 'as clear as the light of day' in its own words.

therefore, whatever is seen, and read in it, you have to accept it as true and do it as it says.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[Philip_the_physicist]

Whilst any nutbags with ancient rules aer dangerous, most fundamentalist christians are far less active in support of the stupider rules: they care about some of the Ten Commandments, and Lev 18:22 (no gays), and a general repression of sex, gambling or anything too modern or fun (at least for everyone else), there are very few who call for stoning delinquent children, or banning shellfish or shaving, and none who are considered significant enough to feature on major news programmes. Ordinary Christian fundies also tend to be far more relaxed about the punishments to be imposed than those specified by the bible.

Fundamentalist Judaism isn't something I've come across, but it seems to be far more personal and, apart from the odd clothes worn by teh ultra-orthodox, not very public kind of fundamentalism. There is fundamentalist Zionism, but that's a different matter entirely.

Christian fundamentalists are bad, and should be kept out of power as much as possible, but fundamentalist Muslims are more extreme.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

koran doesnt teach tolerance or peace.

all that talk is bullshit, which are voiced by moderate muslims in a desperate attempt to justify and maybe smoothen islam. but it never works for those ends.

in koran, muslims have to wage war in all other entities (be country, be religion doesnt matter) and establish a world of islam. in which, all other minorities will get subdued and either pay tribute (cizyah) or convert. with no civil rights to power or anything similar.

there are various verses that directly order attacking and killing nonmuslims. as long as the verses that order jihad, and these verses that openly order attacking and killing other beliefs are in koran, coupled with its general medieval cultural tone, it will be impossible for islam to exist as a moderate religion and coexist.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

no you cant. if you do, you are committing big blasphemy, and you are worthy of being killed.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

The reason that the whole "church and state" separation hasn't taken root in the Muslim world (except in Turkey, where most of the population opposes that separation in any case) is because it's like proposing a separation of "being and living": utterly nonsensical in any practical sense.

first of all, majority in turkey have no problems with secularism. its 25% minority middle eastern wannabees which are funded and guided from middle east are who are against secularism.

and the very thing you call 'nonsensical' is the reason you are today able to sit in front of something called the 'monitor', use something called 'keyboard' and post these medieval thoughts of yours into something called a 'website'.

all such developments were banned from middle east by religious elite, until 20th century took hold and it was no longer rational to do so.

By the way, ex-Muslims with any knowledge call it the "Quran" or "Qur'an", because they generally know a bit of Arabic and can differentiate between Qaf/Kaaf and sometimes make a distinction around the Hamza. Just FYI, the next time you want to pretend being an ex-Moslum.)

i dont give a flying fuck about what muslims in middle east call it. what i call is, 'koran', and i am going to call it that, it is compliant with the pronounciation here in turkey. i dont give a shit about arabic and differentiation in between its letters.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

Islam resisted because it has a much more unified worldview, thanks to being compiled from older mythology by a single man and records of original compilation (or something very close to it) still surviving. That doesn't make it more right. In fact it makes it easier to show there are plenty of bullshit in Koran, without any easy way of explaining away its inaccuracy. I guess when it is time, Islam will go down very hard. Such hard that what remains as Islam won't be recognizable to us as Islam at all.

koran wasnt compiled by mohammad. it was compiled after his death, some decades later, when it turned out that those who heard koran being 'revealed' were dying out and soon noone would be left. under the orders of kaliph, men went out to collect all existing verses. some were acquired from pelts that they were written onto, some were recited from memory by its close circle. then, when all was compiled, it was sent to all the lands under control of the kaliphate, and it was said that this was 'the' koran and all other scriptures whomever one had should be burned.

on another sidenote, there is great deal of difference in between the tone of final sermon of mohammed (which he gave to tens of thousands of people it is said), and the tone of koran. and recently, a ~600 AD koran was discovered in yemen, which is different from the current koran at hand.

 

According to Shias, Sufis and scarce Sunni scholars, Ali compiled a complete version of the Qur'an mus'haf [2] immediately after Muhammad's death. The order of this mus'haf differed from that gathered later during Uthman's era. Despite this, Ali made no objection or resistance against standardized mus'haf, but kept his own book.[32][36]

After seventy reciters were killed in the Battle of Yamama, the caliph Abu Bakr decided to collect the different chapters and verses into one volume. Thus, a group of reciters, including Zayd ibn Thabit, collected the chapters and verses and produced several hand-written copies of the complete book.[32][37]
9th century Qur'an manuscript.

In about 650, as Islam expanded beyond the Arabian peninsula into Persia, the Levant and North Africa, the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan ordered the preparation of an official, standardized version, to preserve the sanctity of the text (and perhaps to keep the Rashidun Empire united, see Uthman Qur'an). Five reciters from amongst the companions produced a unique text from the first volume which had been prepared on the orders of Abu Bakr and which was kept with Hafsa bint Umar. The other copies already in the hands of Muslims in other areas were collected and sent to Medina where, on orders of the Caliph, they were destroyed by burning or boiling. This remains the authoritative text of the Qur'an to this day.[32][38][39]

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

the point is, there are irrefutable evidence that bible is not a book of revelations in its entirety. and there has been innumerable different 'bibles' per se, and some of them were approved.

not to mention that all those bibles were written by at most apostles of jesus, not having anything to do with him in his life.

exact opposite is said in islam. koran is to be said to have been directly sent from god, and all evidence to the contrary was destroyed. yet some still resurface (like the different koran from
~600 AD that was found in yemen).

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[JimProuty]

No, in a court of law it might well be called "a witness".

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

i dont even know who dan brown is.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[suffe]

Because koran is put forth as unchanged word of god, it is impossible to find any excuse to reinterpret it.

Some of the things you say might very well be true and I certainly find some of it interesting, but you seem to be leaning a bit heavily on this pillar (semi-pun intended). From the simple fact that followers of Sunni and Shia (not to mention all of the other smaller factions) are abundant there obviously is room for interpretation. Why would a more modern one not be possible?

For that matter, though I'm by no means an expert, I seem to remember that the OT is supposedly the word of god as well. I guess you could argue that jewish oral traditions might have miss-remembered and made it not the word of god anymore and that by translating it the meaning has changed, but I think a lot of people would disagree. I see plenty of interpretation regarding this work going on. Including, but not limited, to the muslim, jewish and christian readings.

Either or, the point is, it is ALWAYS possible to interpret things in a different way. I bet even the five word Hallmark birthday cards can be interpreted in five-factorial ways, at the very least. It's a human trait.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[ted_smiles]

Well said brother.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[ted_smiles]

The only solution is to recognise Islam for waht it truely is..A Cult! Then, it needs to be outlawed all over the world with very strict penalties on those that follow it.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

Some of the things you say might very well be true and I certainly find some of it interesting, but you seem to be leaning a bit heavily on this pillar (semi-pun intended). From the simple fact that followers of Sunni and Shia (not to mention all of the other smaller factions) are abundant there obviously is room for interpretation. Why would a more modern one not be possible?

actually others have inquired about this and i answered this, but i will again answer :

im leaning on this pillar, because this pillar is the most critical thing, the pivot in which extremism and anti reformism is able to flourish in islam.

its a logical axiom :

- koran says its direct word of god and true.

- koran is told to be unchanged

- koran says it is 'as clear as day' for both 'scholar and the shepherd'

if you take all these logical propositions together, what is said in koran, all the medieval laws and customs and orders, especially those verses that outright order waging war, subduing and killing of non muslims, becomes impossible to reject or reinterpret.

you cant reject because it is also the word of god, unchanged.

you cant reinterpret, because 'unchanged word of god' (koran itself) says that its verses are clear as light of day, and everyone, from learned to shepherd (the ignorant) can understand it.

a shepherd reads koran, it orders it to wage war on non muslims, subdue and convert them or get tribute from them, and how to ambush them in what condition and when not to ambush.

at this point, you cant come up and say 'you misunderstood' to him. he is right, based on the above logical assumptions.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[suffe]

I'm sorry you had to respond again. The page I had loaded in my browser was not properly refreshed and so I didn't notice all the discussions bellow.

While I'm willing to agree you have a point as such, I still do think the future holds lots of mild interpretations.

One reason to think this is the millions upon millions of 'shepherds' that define themselves as muslim and live perfectly peacefull, happy lives next to denominations and non-denominations of all kinds.

Another one is to keep remembering, like I said, that EVERYTHING can be re-interpreted. For example, I'm sure you can find reason to hold that the 'wars' you speak of need not be violent ones. They can be economical, moral, of the mind, what not. I'm not trying to get into a discussion as to if they need or not, I'm just giving the first example that pops into my head. I'm sure people that study the religion day and night for 40 years can, and will, come up with more convincing arguments. I'm sure they will attract more followers than me.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

One reason to think this is the millions upon millions of 'shepherds' that define themselves as muslim and live perfectly peacefull, happy lives next to denominations and non-denominations of all kinds.

only when they are in minority. when they are in majority, what happens in middle east happens. not only they themselves live under oppressed rules, happily, but also all other minorities (if they are still allowed to exist) live as second class citizens. there is no country on the face of the world in which muslims are in majority, have power and there is no oppression.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[suffe]

I guess we are going quite of track here and this thread is becomeing a bit old. I'll just again agree with you and disagree at the same time.

I think the reason for that fact is simple. Most of the world contains oppression. In fact, non-opression is like an island in a sea of opression. Russia and China are the easiest ones to pick up on because of their size but it's not like South America, in general a Catholic stronghold I believe, is that harmonious. India, known for Hinduism, isn't eactly a beacon of personal liberties. Africa, ranging from muslim to christian to all sorts of other things, are in many, many ways a complete mess.

If you want to argue that a lot of the places I just mentioned isn't as screwed up as, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran then I'd like to point out that for example Malaysia and Indonesia, two countries that are by no means top-notch countries, do however have muslim majorities and are run at least on par with some of the less bad oppressors, if there is such a thing.

To make it clear, I make no apologies for them. It's just my beliefe that when you look at the world and you see what a sorry state it is in, it is not more sorry because of the muslims but because of people seeking power, in whatever form they can get it. It is my firm hope that one day everyone can say whatever they want to say, that everyone will feel safe and that life for everyone will be good. I don't think we'll get there by pointing the finger at the wrong reasons though. I think we need to figure out the real reasons, find real sollutions and simply try to look at the world through other peoples eyes.

That said, fuck the bastard that wants to tell anyone else how to behave and the assholes that try to control people by fear. Plenty of muslims fit into that role and so do other people.

As a sidenote, thank you for this short discussion. In general, slashdot is not that conductive to deep reasoning and even though we do not agree with regards to a lot of things, I think we agree on some points and if we were to have a real, live conversation I think it would turn out we stand pretty closely on all the main issues. We just differ on what we think are the reasons for them not being in place.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

actually we arent of track, this issue is specifically the gist of this thread. the medieval core of islam. there is a great difference in between the oppressions in china, russia and the oppression in muslim countries. however i will first clear some misconceptions :

If you want to argue that a lot of the places I just mentioned isn't as screwed up as, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran then I'd like to point out that for example Malaysia and Indonesia, two countries that are by no means top-notch countries, do however have muslim majorities and are run at least on par with some of the less bad oppressors, if there is such a thing.

in malaysia muslims only recently gained power. and immediately started to steer the country towards another saudi arabia example. from the start, various measures to discriminate against women were introduced. indonesia had a lot of oppression in its history, but this wasnt exclusively due to muslim leaning administrations. a true islamist party hasnt come to power there yet. on top of that, indonesia is a handful geography to control - you cant exercise tight control over thousands of islands, and therefore any kind of grand scale social engineering or oppression becomes impossible.

.......

back to the difference of oppression in islam and other kinds of oppression - in islam oppression stems from dogma. whereas in china, it stems from ideology, which can easily be questioned and rejected in a philosophical basis. you cant do this in islam, because, first, it claims to be divine, and therefore is dogma, second, it produces various logical conditions tied to each other that, if you want to refuse any of them, you need to question and refuse all of them. its an all or nothing package.

basically, the oppression in countries like china stems from the tight control of a central government and the faction that is controlling it tightly. if, by any chance, that control weakens, or the faction on top of control mechanism changes, oppression also changes, and the country, the new ruling faction still can change some of the societal values, rules and practices and stay within the same cultural boundaries. a good example is ussr under mikhail gorbachev.

however in islam, even if the ruling faction changes, the level of oppression, the ruleset, the practice cannot change, because, they are hardcoded into logical sets and dogma that you cant refuse partially. so, when you start to change policies, reduce oppression, (going unislamic, infidel in the eyes of the populace), you start to become out of place, because what you do dont fit in with islam. therefore your legitimacy stats becoming questionable. just like the 'reformist' regimes in iran, and their situation vs the public. this is because the oppression, control structure, medieval laws are nestled in islam itself, and islam is the religious dogma AND also the custom with which populace conducts their daily lives. this goes far beyond the brainwashing that was done in ussr or in china, or in any other country. the minority reformist percentages in muslim countries (like iran) cannot cope and be a power base for a reformist government for long.

this is the reason why there havent been any sort of peaceful revolution, reform in any islamist/muslim controlled country up to this date from the start of islam. this includes turkey - turkey was reformed from remnant of ottoman empire by a reformist army general through control of army and the reforms were forced upon otherwise (then) unwilling populace.

basically my point is, due to the above aspects of islam, it would be naive to evaluate islamism, and islam as it is today as just like any other kind of oppressive thought or ideology.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[suffe]

Then please tell me why jews at large are not stoning people for having sex with someone that is married to another person.

Also, please tell me why the reformists that you describe in your reply to me can not be in a majority, at some point in the future. If their views are so internaly consistent in a "muslim logic way" that they can carry over to the current somewhat sizeable minority then clearly what is stopping them from spreading is not the inbuild reasoning of the 'new' interpretation.

The problem of the middle eastern region is a cultural and governing one as well as a historical one. A mindset that rests outside of Islam and is prevalent in many other parts of the world. They could all be Hindi and the exact same patterns would turn up.

And please bear in mind, through all this I am simply forgoing the argument of who are in a majority and minority, outside of the controlling forces. For the sake of argument I'm willing to accept your view because even with that handicap, your reasoning comes out short.

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

Then please tell me why jews at large are not stoning people for having sex with someone that is married to another person.

longer history, much more (and many conflicting or obscure or dubious) theological/'divine' input to judaism, no centralization of belief as in koran without any precedent.

at any point in judaism there were numerous orders, scripture, customs that were attributed to god. it was widespread knowledge, and was hard to repress. with islam, even at the start the information/scripture was there rather intact (or we are told) and at the time koran was scripted into a book by the kaliph any other script was destroyed and any other thought on that matter was totally repressed.

so as it stands, in islam you dont have any point to use as an excuse for not adhering to its strict rules.

lso, please tell me why the reformists that you describe in your reply to me can not be in a majority, at some point in the future. If their views are so internaly consistent in a "muslim logic way" that they can carry over to the current somewhat sizeable minority then clearly what is stopping them from spreading is not the inbuild reasoning of the 'new' interpretation.

the views of reformists can never be consistent in a muslim logic way at any given point. because, as i said, reformism in islam requires refusal of its many aspects. therefore, at any given point in which reformists start to become a noticeable percentage in a predominantly muslim and islamist country, the islamist majority fiercely and brutally lashes back, and represses them. in addition, the perpetuation of the religious dogma is provided by indoctrinating kids at an early age to the dogma, and forcing them to live in a certain way, basically brainwashing kids. so, because islam caters more to the lower segments of society, and these segments are always in big majority, the system perpetuates itself.

The problem of the middle eastern region is a cultural and governing one as well as a historical one. A mindset that rests outside of Islam and is prevalent in many other parts of the world. They could all be Hindi and the exact same patterns would turn up.

you are rather correct in earlier part, but not in the latter part.

islam is the final product of the autocratic, repressive priest-king (later evolves to prophet-king) culture of ancient middle east. you can see aspects of that culture (starting from early agricultural societies) in anything that middle east produced, including all the religions out of it. it is the ultimate codification of this repression system, in a seemingly self consistent way - ie you either accept the package or refuse the package or else.

this is not correct for any other religion. in hinduism you can and do worship a phletora of gods, each with different character and aspect. therefore, there are always a broad array of behavior patterns that are acceptable to the society. islam doesnt provide that kind of liberty.

And please bear in mind, through all this I am simply forgoing the argument of who are in a majority and minority, outside of the controlling forces. For the sake of argument I'm willing to accept your view because even with that handicap, your reasoning comes out short.

you neednt. bring the minority/majority aspect into the issue too. for, its also an important aspect of islam.

mohammad and his followers were 'tolerant' of other thoughts and religions, and their verses in koran and sayings were in accordance up until they got the majority in the place (medinah city) they were invited to escape repression in mecca city. when they got the majority there, no trace of that tolerance was left, and instantly verses ordering them to wage war and repress minorities started to be 'revealed' and they started night raids, and exterminations (beni kuraizah jew tribe for starters).

Re:Islam is dangerous.

[unity100]

entire generations have lived after example of mohammad since mohammad's death. you can be assured there are millions of people doing the same around middle east, despite the modern age.

Lets censor the fundamentalists

[jonfr]

I am tired of this nonsense. I suggest that we start to censor the fundamentalists like they try to censor our free speech.

Good offence is the best defence in some cases.

Re:You don't say

[TheRaven64]

I seriously doubt the Koran explicitly advocates killing people indiscriminately

Much like the Bible, the Qur'an is not especially consistent in this regard. Basically, the prohibition on killing in both is 'don't, it's really bad (unless you really want to and can think of a good excuse, like maybe he's the wrong colour or has different opinions to you or something)'.

He is

[unity100]

and he is right to be afraid. even egyptian reformers were killed, just because they proposed the possibility of maaaybe reinterpreting koran with today's principles.

Re:He is

[dadelbunts]

Except we dont live in an islamic country. Seems like thousands of people in this country didnt mind getting killed for free speech a couple of hundred years ago. If muslims dont like the way we do things here they can leave.

Re:You don't say

[Monkeedude1212]

Does it matter what part of it they are censoring?

Comedy central hasn't censored Jesus in lewd acts before, but tons of other networks have, and cut out the swearing, all that stuff. So what, Comedy Central feels threatened by someone who has actually warned them, and as opposed to just ignoring it and airing the episode, they did something to protect themselves.

Yeah, they don't listen to the complaints of white collar american mothers trying to raise their children because they aren't going to go plant a bomb. Who are you more afraid of offending, your 5 foot tall 90 pound girlfriend who isn't going anywhere, or the 6'11" Linebacker who already told you to shut up?

Don't act like Comedy Central should be big tough heros, stepping across boundaries to offend anyone and everyone, like its their duty to deliver the content uncensored. They didn't sign up for this. They have families at home. They may push it every once in a while, but they aren't exactly going to stick their necks out there after a serious warning from dangerous people, just because you feel its your American right to recieve every message uncensored.

Give me a break.

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

The "image censored" strip over Muhammad and Cruise were probably part of the original episode - you can hear Tom Cruise exalting that "it worked" and there was no other sign that he had the "goo" powers. Comedy Central added *all* the audio bleeps, though. They censored the ending speech because it said something like "we shouldn't let threats of terrorism dictate our actions". Since CC choose to let threats of terrorism dictate their actions...

All hail ...

[lennier1]

... to the Streisand effect.

No, they have not.

[khasim]

The terrorists only win when we lose the will to fight for our Freedoms.

If anything, this shows that Comedy Central has surrendered to terrorism.

But Matt and Trey are still fighting for Freedom of Speech.

Re:No, they have not.

[dissy]

The terrorists only win when we lose the will to fight for our Freedoms.
If anything, this shows that Comedy Central has surrendered to terrorism.
But Matt and Trey are still fighting for Freedom of Speech.

I think the terrorists were fighting America and/or American ways, not Matt and Trey (Though with those two, you never know ;)

So in the sense of what the terrorists were attempting, they won.

Matt, Trey, and a small number* of others have not lost. You guys get a cold one on me.

* Small compared to all of America, who has in most lost the will to fight for freedoms, as well as the will to not give freedoms away for conveniences.

Re:No, they have not.

[commodoresloat]

Am I the only one who thinks Matt and Trey might be lying about this? It just seems like another hoax to me.

Maybe so...

[SanityInAnarchy]

But your method teaches them that they deserve respect, that they deserve to be feared, simply because of their beliefs.

That is not a message I want to send.

Re:Maybe so...

[Jorl17]

Well, I get what you mean, but that's not what my method teaches them. My method may have that as a basis (the fear of them), as well as other arguments (such as the fact that no sudden changes should be made to a human or the fact that there is a much higher probability of them understanding the issue this way). However, the method itself is that of slowly trying to teach them into this, not explicitly stating the 'why' -- sure they can understand the 'why', but if we don't spread it around like monsters we might be safe. The real question is: What tells us that what we do is actually better? Why can't they be right? I personally think they're not, but that doesn't mean that we are; besides that, I'm an anti-religious idiot, who would care about anything that I have to say? It's not like...I sell magazines or have the looks to be elected and trying to change a people's POV...

Re:Maybe so...

[Cryacin]

The real question is: What tells us that what we do is actually better? Why can't they be right? I personally think they're not, but that doesn't mean that we are; besides that, I'm an anti-religious idiot, who would care about anything that I have to say? It's not like...I sell magazines or have the looks to be elected and trying to change a people's POV...

Well thank everything for that. Mate, I think you need to put your idea back into the over for about another 3 hours. It's half baked.

Re:Maybe so...

[SanityInAnarchy]

the method itself is that of slowly trying to teach them into this, not explicitly stating the 'why' -- sure they can understand the 'why', but if we don't spread it around like monsters

Sorry, how is it "monstrous" to draw an offensive picture? How does that even compare to the real monsters, those who would kill people over an offensive picture?

The real question is: What tells us that what we do is actually better? Why can't they be right?

Because we can actually have this conversation. Conversations like this, where there are no restriction on what ideas may be raised for consideration, tend to lead us closer to truth and fairness.

Freedom of speech is also a prerequisite for any kind of democracy. Censorship is also capricious -- where does it stop? Who decides what may be published, and how do they decide it? Even if you agree censorship is a good thing, I think death threats are a terrible way to decide what should be censored.

besides that, I'm an anti-religious idiot, who would care about anything that I have to say?

Other non-religious people. Also some religious people who might look to convert you, and also some religious people who are just curious.

If you truly have nothing to say, that's another matter, but censoring yourself out of fear is by definition a cowardly act.

have the looks to be elected

Have you seen Dick Cheney?

Re:You don't say

[Rewind]

Well thats the old part. I am hardly a theology scholar, but I think (could be wrong) a lot of the stuff in the new testament was ment to invalidate the old stuff, like stoning. So if someone is doing it for Jebus then they should be likewise against that stuff. If they just follow the old testament then they aren't really Christains, but that would be some valid form of religion I guess.

Re:If that's how they respond...

[thenewguy001]

they maybe someone should threaten to murder them if they DO censor any more south park episodes. Where's a violent gun-toting islam-hating extremist when you need one?

Re:You don't say

[ElusiveMind]

Yeah anyway! Aren't these the same guys who wrote "America, Fuck Yeah!"

Re:You don't say

[kuwan]

The problem is that the fundamentalist/extremist Muslims don't fear the repercussions of their actions. The reason why they don't fear retaliation is because we don't have the resolve or guts to break their will. In ancient warfare you decimated your enemy until he had no desire or will to continue fighting. There was no care or hesitation for collateral damage. That type of warfare will never happen in this day and age (at least not from us) which is why we'll never be able to fully suppress zealots such as these.

Re:You don't say

[PopeRatzo]

The Bible advocates stoning many people under various circumstances,

Right, but hardly anyone, including devout christians, really believes that crap. Except for whacked out oathkeeper hutaree militia nuts sitting in the Michigan mud wearing camo and playing war, you won't find many people, many christians, or even many bible-humping evangelicals who take the "stone adulterers" seriously.

Mainly because they're busy humping their neighbor's wife, but still, most people in the world don't have to worry about christians shooting up a school bus full of children in the name of hay-zoos. Yet there's good reason to believe the guy driving my cab is trying to get his hands on some explosives to kill people with. In fact, here in Chicago, they just busted a guy for connecting with al qaeda and trying to do that very thing. Fortunately, he wasn't bright enough to figure out that the guy in the plastic "FBI" jacket who said he was working for al qaeda and could hook him up wasn't really who he said he was.

But it's not really all that comforting to know that the main thing that protects us is that religious zealots seldom have much going on "upstairs".

Using the controversy, maybe?

[AnonymousClown]

It's interesting you say that. They have showed Mohamad in the past and I believe, the Muslim organization also had a tizzy too and it didn't get this attention.

It may not be a stunt orchestrated by CC, but they may be using that organization to make the noise for them.I've never heard of those guys before and it's interesting that they're getting all this press. Why now?

That's just my cynical side guessing.

Ya well

[Sycraft-fu]

I subscribe to the Malcolm Reynolds theory "If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back." If radical Muslims want to attack our country because we don't be nice to them, well then we'll fight back. We've got a far better army, I think we'll win.

Really you can't say "Oh those people threaten violence, we have to let them have their way." Fuck no, only thing that will lead to is more violence when they again want to force their way on you. The answer needs to be to tell them to fuck off. If the threats are idle, then no problem. If they aren't then respond.

You shouldn't go around living your life in fear.

Re:Ya well

[bane2571]

We've got a far better army, I think we'll win.

Hmmm, you know, this I would have believed 5-10 years ago. How's your economy doing now after trying to "win"?

Actually, USA v Muslim nations seems a prime example of an eye for an eye leaving everyone blind.

Re:Ya well

[jasmusic]

Our economy was doing great till the Democrats took Congress, and then Obama started kissing the Muslims' asses while engineering a socialist hell for us. Now it's like, if that stupid dumbo fuck is going to sell us out, why even bother in the first place?

Re:Ya well

[Sollord]

Give the troops the same ROE we used in WW2 or what the enemy uses and it will all over in a very short time. It takes a lot of money, time, and effort to not just level an entire city and kill everyone in it then move onto the next city and repeat. Winning an old fashion dirty war is easy compared to the politically correct clean "wars" we have to fight now. War is supposed to be hell on earth so the US hasn't fought a real dirty war since at least Vietnam if not Korea. The US military could wipe out the entire Middle East if they had the kill it all policy most liberal think it does because winning hearts and minds is a bitch of task even if it seems ot be mostly pointless in the end.

Re:Ya well

[cyberworm]

I semi-agree with you. I feel like CC's stance should have been "Whatever. Eat it." Viacom in their willingness to kowtow to this group, just gave them a huge voice. In a lot of ways, that is just as bad as this group's threats of murder. I'm sure Matt and Trey knew what they were doing and are up to the risk that mocking these fruitbats involves. I don't think the location of their studios is something that couldn't be found in less than 5 minutes by searching google. Exactly what did this group of extremists do, that any other radical group wouldn't have already wanted to do had they actually taken this seriously? I'd hate to see Matt, Trey, the production staff, or anyone from Comedy Central murdered over something like this, but at the same time, where do we draw the line? Obviously banning Islam and it's practice is a bad idea, but how do we deal with a religion that feels it's rules take precedence over the law?

Re:Ya well

[Skreems]

It's not pointless... we just haven't gotten enough of a string of consistent foreign policy out of our elected leaders to get the full benefit in a while.

Re:Ya well

[21mhz]

It's disturbing when this kind of crazy-ass ranting gets modded up.

So, you are in favor of wiping out an entire region where millions of people live, because ultimately, some religious nuts with origins there have killed a few thousand, and others (not necessarily from Middle East) are posting threats on the internet? Hmm, maybe those people around the world who mistrust America's intentions have a point... What if people like you elect somebody seriously wrong.

Re:Ya well

[Sollord]

You sir are an fing idiot. I was pointing out the reason the war is so expensive is because we don't fight it like we used to. We go to an insane amount of trouble to keep it clean and safe for the non-combatants as possible and that if we didn't we could wipe out the entire Middle East rather easily. Based on your post I can see you've got your far left liberal glasses on because what you read and what I posted are to totally different realities. At NO time did I advocate wiping out the middle east as you imply instead I stated we had the ability to do it with ease but do not because we have a far more morals and ethics when it comes to our ROE then the enemy does. IF we fought like the enemy who have no morals, ethics, or honor does we would of easily move form city to city leveling them one by one and killing everyone in them and no one in the region could of stopped us and we'd of used a lot more bombs doing it but it would of been a short and insanely bloody genocide and we do have the ABILITY to do it but we don't nor would we ever do so because we have ethics and morals and believe civilians aren't part of the fight so we go out of our way at great expense to spare them from as much injury and death as possible but we are by no means perfect and accidents happen. You will probably read this reply and see it as me advocating genocide now and That is why I hate a lot of the far left what they read is far different from what is written most of the time.

Re:Ya well

[BobMcD]

Winning an old fashion dirty war is easy compared to the politically correct clean "wars" we have to fight now. War is supposed to be hell on earth so the US hasn't fought a real dirty war since at least Vietnam if not Korea. The US military could wipe out the entire Middle East if they had the kill it all policy most liberal think it does because winning hearts and minds is a bitch of task even if it seems ot be mostly pointless in the end.

Do you mean to say that prior to Vietnam/Korea it was the policy of the US military to 'wipe out' entire regions?

I don't think I've read that particular history book. Do you have a reference for me?

Re:Ya well

[Sollord]

Where did my formatting go :(

Re:Ya well

[Sollord]

I was implying Carpet bombing raids. You'll notice if you try hard enough that Korea and Vietnam were in the sentence before I mention wiping out the Middle East as a snub against liberals who think that is what we're doing now.

No. Christians kill too. It's rare for Muslims.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Because while Christians will turn the other cheek, and Buddhists likewise, Muslims will fucking kill you.

It's rather a shame that this was modded informative, because it means we don't actually know that much about Islam here. Yes, there are Islamic extremists who will kill you. We had Christian extremists who would kill you for being Muslim for hundreds of years--the Crusades. We still have Christian extremists who burn crosses to scare people they don't like. The extremism on either side uses religion to justify its extremism, but it's not an inherent part of any faith. People have killed for Judaism, but I don't think any of the Jews I've known ever have. (I don't recall offhand if any of them have been in the IDF, and there are plenty of complicating factors, but the point stands. The IDF is not an extremist group by any stretch of the imagination, and I believe they try to do things correctly, but they also commit war crimes from time to time. Some militaries are worse about it than others. My rough estimate would be they're worse than the US but much better than, for example, Sudan. Though everybody's better than Sudan. Mmm... a little offtopic, though many militaries look to the will of God for justification, officially or unofficially. As does nonconventional warfare/terrorism.)

Anyway, the point is that some Christians kill too, and most Muslims don't. There may be more Muslims who will kill you for satire right now, but we shouldn't be generalizing because it polarizes us, and that's a bad thing. We want to bring people together on common interest in--for example--not being blown up. Living well. We don't want to drive wedges between America and the rest of the world by generalizing "America good. Muslims kill."

The interesting question is whether they censored it because it will be offensive, or because they'll get killed. To my mind the former is legitimate, if they decide to do that. (It's their network, and it's okay to be polite--even in comedy.) The latter is a much less satisfying and more probable possibility.

Re:Religion: source of all evil

[MrHanky]

Perhaps not so much afraid of Islamist terrorists as of the dreaded -1, off topic, I suspect.

Re:You don't say

[moco]

I don't know how many Tray and Mat have got, but if you think extremist Christians don't make (and carry out) death threats you are being delusional. Extremism is bad, period.

Death to all extremists!

They won't back down to whacko Christian threats

[Shivetya]

and I am sure Jewish and Hindu would be ignored.

No, they backed down for two reasons. The radical Islamic groups are known to carry out their threats. The current trend in upper American government is to treat these loons with kid gloves all based on this idiot idea if we are nice to them they will be nice to us. The fact is they totally dictate to the media what the media can say. One or more of their kind makes a real threat but others "the supposedly peaceful side" claims that its not what it seems and that the people who dared to say something bad about Islam are the real problem. It works out so well and we read about it daily.

They fear them rightfully so but their reaction is still wrong. The reason this fear and threat can persist is because far too many leaders want to act magnanimous in declaring they will turn the other cheek. This is nothing more than the good old policies of liberal lore where certain races are predisposed to violence, theft, or just need help getting an education because they don't have the ability to do good on their own. Condescending through and through

Re:You don't say

[Kennon]

All because people are scared of offending muslims.

"But sir, no one worries about upsetting a droid"

"That's because droids don't pull peoples arms out of their sockets when they lose, wookies are known to do that."

Re:LOL ISLAM

[Anonymous Coward]

just as I thought.

Not one ball among you all, maybe you deserve what Islam says you have coming. I'm just pissed that it also includes me. I guess I'm flawed in that way....LOL.

it is what it is . can't be what it ain't

[Derpnooner]

***AHeM *** Flying spaghetti monster.

...all I'm saying.

Re:You don't say

[niko9]

I'm a gun toting American! I'm also a liberal, and an atheist, and I live in New York City. What exactly does "turning one's cheek" have to do with with carrying a firearm? You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right? You do realize that the overwhelming majority of _law abiding_ persons who own/carry firearms do so with the knowledge that they are only to be used only the event of IMMINENT FEAR OF DEATH AND/OR GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. Even the disciples carried swords, you dimwit. With that said...

A paradoy of your deity might be considered a petty insult. This is the instance where you turn the other cheek. You don't go around killing people for this petty shit.

Re:Religion: source of all evil

[Pinky's Brain]

Fuck Mohammed and his nine year old kid fucking condoning followers.

Re:You don't say

[dow]

When we're discussing Southpark, they are called God Damn F-cking Jews.

Re:Religion: source of all evil

[Pinky's Brain]

PS. not OP though.

Re:You don't say

[martas]

Muslims will fucking kill you.

did anybody else think of jeff dunham while reading this?

Fight fire with fire.

[budfields]

I don't think the losers at "revolutionmuslim.com" have thought this through. Do they realize who they are messing with? They are messing with millions of geeks. If one hair on the head of Trey or Matt were touched after these powerless mockworthy little boys incited violence against them, their lives would be a husk.

It would be like those nature shows where tens of thousands of ants swarm over a hapless creature, take it apart and cart its lifeless body away.

I say, put up their personal info, just as they did to Trey and Matt. Put up their home address. Their business address. All their website info. Their relatives. Their license plates. Photos. The names of their friends. Their cell phone logs. Then, inform them that they will immediately commence to STFU, now, or their existence will become a hell the likes of which their holy book never informed them.

They need to feel just how outnumbered they are.

Re:Fight fire with fire.

[jackchance]

ya. can't we sic the 4chan on them?

Re:Fight fire with fire.

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

If you put up Matt and Trey's info someone may attempt to kill them. Sure, all the geeks in the world can probably figure out what Al-Amrikee had for breakfast this morning or post some distasteful pictures of them on 4chan, but other than a bunch of anonymous phone calls and general harassment I don't see much happening. We're geeks, not lunatics wanting to kill people over something, no matter how angered, even if many of us are well armed lunatics. That is the difference between a terrorist and a geek.

Re:Fight fire with fire.

[TheDugong]

We could pour liquid heat in their jocks and do a panty raid on their girlfriends.

Re:Fight fire with fire.

[blackraven14250]

but other than a bunch of anonymous phone calls and general harassment I don't see much happening.

Good thing geeks know how to use Google to find radical christian sites, where those people can be given this information....

Re:Fight fire with fire.

[mrdoogee]

Th problem with 4chan and anonymous is that they are unpredictable. To use a metaphor, if the courts are a scalpel, and the army a broadsword, then 4chan is a rabid 3 legged badger with chronic flatulence.

Re:Fight fire with fire.

[jackchance]

if the courts are a scalpel, and the army a broadsword, then 4chan is a rabid 3 legged badger with chronic flatulence.

When you put it like that it seems the perfect match for revolutionmuslim.com!

I watched an interview with them at cnn.com and i'm not sure they are true believers. They might be trying to "out" extremists by saying in public what others might be saying in private. Also their site is monitored by the FBI so anyone dumb enough to comment on there is basically under surveillance.

Fake Controversy

[malv]

Revolution Muslim is a false-flag organization. Both the leaders are "supposide" Jewish converts. Here's an image of one of the leaders carrying a sign that misspells "Jews" as "Juice" (a Jew that can't spell 'Jew' correctly?)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/death-to-the-ju.html [typepad.com]

The pair is often featured on CNN and Fox News. I don't even think they have any actual followers.

There is some information collected about the pair here:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3427255.0 [fisheaters.com]

Re:Fake Controversy

[Jason Levine]

"Death to all Juice?" Isn't that a bit extreme? I mean, I might not like vegetable juice that much and pineapple juice just doesn't work for me, but apple juice isn't too bad. Neither is orange juice provided there's no pulp... But, god help you if you bring me orange juice with pulp!!!!

Re:Fake Controversy

[Cow Jones]

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/death-to-the-ju.html

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3427255.0

Those links lead straight into conspiracy theory heaven. The Revolution Muslim brothers are the American Al-Qaeda. No, they're just two fanatics without a following. No, they're really agents provocateurs working for the Anti Defamation League. No, they're recruiting terrorists. No, they're Mossad. Al-Quaeda doesn't exist, and Bush bombed the WTC. No, Israel did it... ... and so on.

I find it hard to believe that somebody with near perfect English and a fanatical devotion to all things Islam doesn't know how to spell "jews", but most online sources assume just that (illiterate wannabe terrorists). The other sign says "Throw the Jew down the well", which is from Sacha Baron Cohen song. The question is, are they doing that to discredit Islamists, or are they sending a message while remaining within the limits of their First Amendment rights?

It would be great to get some objective information on that group, but even in the Wikipedia article, many of the sources look suspect, or at least heavily biased.

CJ

Re:Fake Controversy

[Neoprofin]

All the more reason to ignore them completely. Except now they've gotten what they wanted, and I think this makes it a real controversy.

Re:Fake Controversy

[Eli Gottlieb]

Oh shut the fuck up. I've had it up to my neck with Internet Islamists like you calling everything that makes Islam, Islamism, Islamofascism, or any subset thereof Jewish propaganda.

Get off my internet you god-damned anti-Semite.

Re:Fake Controversy

[Bigjeff5]

Wow, you really can't tell that guy spelled it "Juice" on purpose?

How stupid are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim

They aren't fake, they're just dumbasses. Saying "Death to all Juice" was a pussy's way of making a death threat, not some parody or joke.

Re:Fake Controversy

[malv]

Oooo, a Jewish racist playing the anti-Semite card. I am a white atheist, btw.

Re:Fake Controversy

[Noren]

I can understand why someone might think that the Juice might deserve the death penalty.

Is there anything I'm not allowed to draw?

[RobDollar]

Out of curiosity, is there anything I'm not legally allowed to draw?

I'm not a muslim and therefore consider myself to be allowed to draw Mohammed, infact I just did in GIMP (not MSpaint as I didnt want to offend Linux fundamentalists)
Do not click if offended by shocking religious imagery http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1287/mohow.jpg

So is there anything I can't draw on a piece of paper (without any words in any language) ?

Re:Is there anything I'm not allowed to draw?

[Hatta]

Hentai.

Re:Is there anything I'm not allowed to draw?

[jeti]

Creating or spreading drawings of children having or witnessing sex or simply posing in an 'erotic' way can get you to jail in many countries. To my knowledge, this includes the US.

Re:Is there anything I'm not allowed to draw?

[Tim C]

I'm not sure if it would pass your "without any words in any language" condition, but banknotes, stamps and other such items would be problematic. In addition to that, depending on what exactly you drew it on, drawing logos might well have you on charges of fraud or forgery, or possibly facing a civil suit for trademark or copyright infringement.

Re:You don't say

[HTH NE1]

adult swim, it brought back futurama and family guy, why not be the savior of freedom of speech and expression for south park!

Have you forgotten their censoring of the two instances of "Great Zombie Jesus!" from Futurama?

Re:You don't say

[Bakasama]

I think he was suggesting threatening Comedy Central Execs. I don't think anyone else is censoring episodes.

Re:You don't say

[Animaether]

Ask Japan what happens when you go suicidal on the US.

You get a few nukes dropped on you, scores of people die, then you move on with your life and build one of the most powerful and technologically advanced (albeit still suicidal) societies on Earth?

Sounds almost like a plan.

Re:You don't say

[DeadboltX]

I don't know what the "I learned something today" speech contained (does anybody at this point?) but I found enough humor in the censored version since they all seemed to have agreed to learning the unknown lesson.

Why THIS time Muhammed ?

[RapmasterT]

Funny how no Muslims gave a crap that south Park already showed Muhammed in full face glory, and conversed with him during the Super Best Friends episode...but that was years before the Dutch cartoon crisis that made us all "sensitive". Frankly, the idea that Muslims are being portrayed as irrational, murderous, religious fanatics is more disturbing than any insult SP might offer. Muslims should be pissed that everyone thinks they'll flare up into terrorism at every sideways glance at their faith. or conversely, if Muslims really ARE that prone to murderous violence, that's kind of important to know too, and we should do something about it. yes, I am actually saying that if a group of people are one off color joke away from committing murder, we need to "do something" about them.

Re:Why THIS time Muhammed ?

[santax]

Danish... The cartoon of Mohammed with the bomb/head is from a Danish cartoonist.

Re:Why THIS time Muhammed ?

[daver00]

Not to mention the fact that the super best friends episode is aired as a rerun frequently! The mental gymnastics required to reconcile that is making my head spin.

Re:Why THIS time Muhammed ?

[X10]

Dutch was Theo van Gogh, killed because he "insulted" Muslims.

Re:Why THIS time Muhammed ?

[LanMan04]

Funny how no Muslims gave a crap that south Park already showed Muhammed in full face glory

That's because he had the power of fire, which is pretty fucking cool, even to pissed-off fundamentalists.

Re:You don't say

[GooberToo]

Sure, but by that same token, I seriously doubt the Koran explicitly advocates killing people indiscriminately.

It does not. It has very specific conditions which must be met to allow for the legal killing as defined by Islamic law. The problem has been, extremists, by far, stretch the conditions and ambiguity of some text to say that indiscriminate murder is demanded for anything and everything which isn't Islam.

In short, just as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who understand what it is they are reading and those who are fucktard, sock puppets void of any rational thought or ability to critically think for themselves.

In Islam, those who truly understand what it is they are reading, abhor violence and understand the Koran is very much against it. True followers of Islam are extremely peaceful and also accept both the Torah/Old Testament, as well as many of the Christian Gospels, as tenets of faith and articles to be read and understood. Its important to understand, Islam is entirely built on top of Judaism and Christianity. All three are considered to be religions of Abraham and worship the same god; be it Yahweh, God, or Allah.

What do you mean by "aired"?

[Hurricane78]

I watched the show on http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/1405/ . Uncensored. Like everybody else.

Well, actually on southpark.de, because I’m in Germany, and they stupidly force me to use that site.
It was linked on the front page. Interestingly, it went out of the episode list again. The blog post and comments are gone. The forum's database is down. And now the front page link to the above URL is also gone, reverted to the old episode.
The direct link still works though.

But it feels weird even thinking of having a TV again... A projector is the same price, if not cheaper, much much bigger, can be used on your PC (which itself can be hidden in a corner), and my projector even has mouse control built into the remote.
I think your IQ jumps up by at least 10 point, when you throw away your TV. (Unless you replace it by 4chan, of course. ^^)

Re:What do you mean by "aired"?

[drinkypoo]

A projector is the same price, if not cheaper, much much bigger, can be used on your PC (which itself can be hidden in a corner), and my projector even has mouse control built into the remote.

Projectors eat lamps. Currently trying to find a way to justify buying a $250 lamp for a $400 (used) projector. It worked when I got it, I got maybe 1000 hours out of the lamp? It's XGA, and my TV is 1080p...

Re:You don't say

[Aladrin]

And there are Muslims that I'm more afraid to be around than the 'gun-toting Americans' I went to school with.

What's your point?

(For record, I know what you were trying to say, and it's bullshit. There are crazies in every group. Just because some asshole said he wants to kill Muslims is no reason to brand all 'gun-toting Americans' as genocide-supporters.

Re:You don't say

[IndustrialComplex]

Really? I think someone needs to tell the gun-toting Americans...

This gun-toting American is agnostic.

Re:You don't say

[HTH NE1]

I was expecting them to make a reference directly to the black censored bar as resembling the 1:4:9 Monoliths in 2001 and 2010. Especially since this is 2010!

They could have done it by having the "goo extractor" go out of control and operate in reverse, sucking all the celebrities into Muhammad, capped with the line, "My Muhammad, He's full of stars!"

Or did they use the Monolith as a reference before?

Re:You don't say

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

That reminds me of Bill Hicks. He always said that there were always some crazy christians that would bother him after the show (specially in the south), and they would go:

"Buddy, come here" (pushing him) "Hey, come here (push)" then he would push away with his hand, while saying "come here .... not a physics major".

And then ...

  - We are christians, we don't like what you said
  - Then forgive me.

"Later, when i was hanging from the tree ..."

Re:You don't say

[Monkeedude1212]

It's easy to bash on Comedy Central when you aren't the one in danger.

Where is it written that innocent television broadcasters need to put their lives on the line to adhere to your ideals?

Re:You don't say

[__aaoyac5342]

Time to start killing people that disagree with me, the Muslims did it so it must be OK.

Re:You don't say

[Locke2005]

Because while Christians will turn the other cheek Unless you commit a truly outrageous sin, like being Jewish and refusing to convert to Catholicism. Then Christians will fucking kill you too! You also can get killed for being Muslim in Sarajevo, Jewish in Germany, etc. But buggering altar boys... that just gets you transferred. (Obviously, as an altar boy, you are expected to "turn the other cheek."

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Psychopath]

When one is presented with contradictory instructions, one chooses the instruction that fits what one wants to do.

What a bunch of whining, gutless fucking pussies.

[helgihg]

Man, am I getting tired of muslims being offended. Hey, muslims, here's a news flash! WE'RE ALL OFFENDED! ALL THE TIME! People with half the guts of a mouse just live with it, and it's not rocket science, either. You just... live with it. It's really just that simple, and you're not beyond it. Get over yourselves, you whining, gutless, fucking pussies.

Re:You don't say

[Dishevel]

Yupppers. The Pope is a fucking pedo protector. We know this. I do not like the catholic church anyway. At least though they are not threatening to kill me because I mentioned it. To continue the fun.

"Fuck that Pedo The Prophet Muhammed!"

Re:You don't say

[Alcoholist]

So maybe the Western World should grow a bigger pair. Tell these nutjobs that if you want to try to kill me over a cartoon, then I'm going to try to kill you right back.

Re:You don't say

[Hurricane78]

Man, you sound like Cheney. When you aim south, somebody’s going to get shot in the north! ^^

Or in other words: You deserve an award for how much you miss the point. (And not a good award.)

Protip: There was a time when Christians acted like this. It’s called THE DARK AGES!
It was a desperate time. With crusades, inquisitions, but most of all, power-greedy dicks controlling people.
This is the exact same thing now. Only in the Muslim world.
It does not matter AT ALL, which “religion” it is.
Because religion really is a protective mechanism gone haywire, causing a delusional reality distortion. Which is then used by some real immoral assholes, to manipulate people, to do shit like this.

But your anger only fuels it even more. And I think you know this, and do it deliberately. Or at least should know it, if you want to call yourself educated and better.
What do you think you going to get, by acting like a dick and strengthening their disease even more?

Wanna know how to get them out of their delusion? The same thing as with schizophrenia: Offer them a better alternative, and let them keep their pride. Let them migrate to that better alternative, until they simply stop having the need for the delusion.
Then they naturally will stop caring for “Muhammed”.

Of course this is easier said than done. But I don’t see an alternative. Or do you really want to insult and kill disabled people? I couldn’t be that heartless. Because it would make me no betther than the mullahs or them.

Wanna know what I do when I meet a religious extremist?
I do a little nice gesture, that makes their life better, and causes them to instantly like me.
When I do it right, and give them some time, I can pull a joke on Muhammed, and they won’t hate me, but join in in it.
The little glimmer of hope that we’re actually nice people and will together make things good, is already enough.
Try it. And you may even make your enemies your allies. :)

Re:You don't say

[zblack_eagle]

Personally I thought "turning the other cheek" was supposed to invalidate the "eye for an eye" deal of systematic revenge rather than precluding justifiable self-defense.

I believe that the gun-toting Americans that he was referring to are the God-fearing "Christians" that seem to quote more of the Old Testament than New who instead of loving-thy-neighbour espouse the killing of anyone who is different in the way many fundamentalist extremists of any religion do

The terrorists have won

[frovingslosh]

The terrorists made threats, and in response Comedy Central gave the terrorists what they wanted. The terrorists have won.

Don't play by Comedy Central / Islam's game...

[mmaniaci]

Put on your best eyepatch and let out a throaty AARRRGGGHHHHH: http://www.google.com/search?q=south+park+s14e06+torrent The SP team won't really lose anything if you download this episode. Comedy Central will lose profits and Muhammed will lose some spotlight, and both of those are great!

Re:Don't play by Comedy Central / Islam's game...

[k3vlar]

All I can find is the Comedy Central censored version!

Nice job, Comedy Central!

[divisionbyzero]

Now instead of offending a few million whacko muslim fanatics you've offended tens of millions of Americans! Brilliant!

Re:You don't say

[X0563511]

I have to say this (in dealing with customers from that part of the world via email/tickets) that you all seem to have an obsession with excessive punctuation.

What is with that?

No, really.

"This is what PAY YOU FOR!???!??????"

or "SERVER IS DOWN, PLEASE TO CHECK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

None of our other foreign demographics seem to do that. They all have their own thing, but the Middle East is the only one that comes across as 13-year-old AOL users.

Holding Muhammad's image sacred is against Islam

[IBitOBear]

My my, admittedly lay, understanding the prohibition of making images of Muhammad was to prevent his elevation to a protected status. That is, it is to prevent Muhamud from becoming the target of Idolatry.

By treating his image as special and sacrosanct, Comedy Central has violated and insulted the tennants of Islam by putting the prophet before Alah.

This homage to his image is _literally_ a damned if you don't position.

Sure, a lot of "Arab Rednecks" who don't understand their own religion think an image of Muhammad is wrong. But given that making _fun_ of Muhammad is in no danger of raising his image as an idol.

So technically Comedy Central has attacked Islam with their censorship.

(but since neither position makes any sense at all, perhaps they should stop pretending that bowing to a vocla minority of any persuasion is just wrong.)

In practical terms I would think they would be more afraid putting the dick to L Ron, since those Xenu Fearing Wing Nuts are way more likely to make their life difficult.

Re:Religion: source of all evil

[HTH NE1]

Fuck Mohammed and his nine year old kid fucking condoning followers.

I don't understand what you're saying. Why is an old kid fucking Mohammed's condoning followers? And what's a "nine year"? Is it a year containing the digit "9"? It's 2010 now, dude. And why should we fuck an old kid? That sounds like statutory rape of a teenager to me.

(That sentence is so totally fucked it has not even a remnant of a hym^Hphen anywhere!)

Re:You don't say

[maxwell demon]

I'm guessing iPharaoh isn't Coptic.

iPharaoh? Is that the new title of Steve Jobs?

Re:You don't say

[CODiNE]

That's because they're not actually Christians.
Mt. 7:21-23

21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? 23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!

And also same chapter verse 15

15 Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

That whole "wolves in sheeps clothing" stuff is talking about religious leaders and those who use religion to accomplish their objectives, whether wealth, power, fame, etc...

And those who follow them: 2 Tim 4:3,4

3 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own lusts, they will heap up to themselves teachers tickling the ear; 4 and they will turn away the ear from the truth and will be turned aside to myths.

If we can discuss what the Koran teaches and judge between "real Muslims" and "nominal Muslims" then we can do the same about Christians.

Flex your rights

[WilyCoder]

Trey and Matt should have Mohammed in every fucking episode they air from now on. I don't just mean in the intro to the show, I mean like a new character like one of the boys.

Let those censoring assholes fucking WORK to achieve censorship...

Re:Flex your rights

[jayveekay]

You can demonstrate your support for Matt and Trey, and your opposition to this violent intimdation, by wearing a T-shirt with the image of Mohammed every day for the rest of your life.

Re:Flex your rights

[Jason Levine]

Kyle: "Hey look, it's our new friend [OBVIOUS VOICEOVER IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VOICE]BILL[/VOICEOVER]."
New Kid: "Hey Guys."
Stan: "Hey, [VOICEOVER]BILL[/VOICEOVER]. Say, [VOICEOVER]BILL[/VOICEOVER], how do you spell your name?"
New Kid: "[VOICEOVER]B - I - L - L[EXTREMELY LONG PAUSE WHILE CHARACTER'S LIPS MOVE /][/VOICEOVER]"
Cartman: "Is it true that you're religion is [VOICEOVER]SOMETHING WE WON'T EVER MAKE FUN OF FOR FEAR OF VIOLENT REPRISAL[/VOICEOVER]?" (Cartman freezes in place while the voiceover catches up to the real show.)
New Kid: "Yes. I am a [VOICEOVER]NICE GUY[/VOICEOVER]."

End scene.

Re:Flex your rights

[Cow Jones]

"Oh my god! You killed Muhhamed."

You infidel bastards!

Re:Flex your rights

[Neoprofin]

There doesn't seem to be any good ones for sale anymore. Hopefully this recent incident will change that. I think it might finally be time for me to get into the political t-shirt game.

Re:You don't say

[Z34107]

"Gun-toting" and "crazy" are orthogonal. While your coworkers are definitely both, you should be suspicious of anyone who wants to limit your capacity for self-defense.

Re:You don't say

[Kalriath]

You already did. It's called Australia.

Re:You don't say

[Hurricane78]

Their fear is not unfounded and is with precedent.

Welcome to Cheney’s propaganda... which is just as delusional as any religion.
Come one! You’re better than this! You are wise enough to make your own opinions.

The “treat” from Muslim extremists is ridiculously low. Negligible even.
Car accidents, smoking, fighting pointless wars... those are the real killers... so to speak...
(Or the threat from Christian extremists in e.g. Alabama. ;)
You know that as well as I do.

Also, the biggest problem you can have with religious people, is trough social incompetence and ignorance.
The trick is, to not speak with words. But with emotions. (Women have a genetic advantage in this skill, while we men sometimes have a hard time with it. This different way of communication is actually the main cause of problems in relationships.)
And the skill is, being able to properly handle desperate schizophrenic people. (Religion can be seen as a mild [or stronger] schizophrenia.) What I mean by this, is not not ignorantly hate them, but to understand why they are like they are in the first place, and use that, to make them your allies and friends. (Sun Tzu already knew that this is the best of all strategies of war. And China was extremely successful with it in medieval times.)

Re:You don't say

[mirix]

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
        —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

Where does it say "blast the motherfucker that jacked you for your sneakers"?

Yeah damnit

[Colin Smith]

. The current trend in upper American government is to treat these loons with kid gloves all based on this idiot idea if we are nice to them they will be nice to us.

You should go over there and bomb them into... Wait, didn't you do that already?

 

Re:Yeah damnit

[Darkness404]

The wars in Iraq and Iran were small attempts at stopping Islamic terrorism. It failed mostly because the initial strikes were weak and failed to apprehend the main leaders of terrorism.

Re:Yeah damnit

[21mhz]

Are you sure you know what are you talking about? US did not go to war with Iran yet.

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

They hosted Carlos Mencia You'd think they'd be used to death threats by now...

Re:You don't say

[ArcherB]

One day one of them said "we need to just round up all the muslims and shoot them" holy crap, dont realize if you know this, but that's called ethnic cleansing!!

Tell you what, when they actually act on that, and kill, I don't know, let's say 3000 Muslims or so in the name of Jesus, and Christians celebrate in the streets, you can come back with your moral equivalence argument. Until then, blow it out your ass.

Re:If that's how they respond...

[Anonymice]

Where's a violent gun-toting islam-hating extremist when you need one?

Last I heard, shooting moose in Alaska...

Re:You don't say

[Burz]

most people in the world don't have to worry about christians shooting up a school bus full of children in the name of hay-zoos.

No, they have to worry about being murdered by Christians for other reasons.

I don't think the rest of the globe is impressed that we prefer the "developed" and de-personalized mode of killing via remote pushbutton automation. Oh but we're "surgical" and all that... too bad about the high body count.

MechaStreisand?

[guygo]

Oh. I thought they were saving us from MechaStreisand. Nvm.

Re:You don't say

[bane2571]

you forgot the "USA needs to protecy you with their military at their cost" Clause too. Come to think of it, is that still in effect?

Re:You don't say

[sharkey]

The "treat" from Muslim extremists is ridiculously low. Negligible even.

Maybe we should offer Comedy Central "treats" of our own. I'll kick in for a couple of double cones at 31 Flavors.

Re:LOL ISLAM

[Anonymous Coward]

One last bump before I get to say, "I TOLD YOU SO!".

Search your feelings, you know...aww fuck it, you're already lost heh.

I think I'll go make myself a MuHAMed sammich...mmm. ;p

Re:You don't say

[outsider007]

Comedy Central != America. If it did Colbert would be president and Matt and Trey would be secretary of fart jokes.

Max Headroom "Lessons"

[HTH NE1]

Ah, the classic "it's not censorship if it's not the government" argument.

"Freedom. You know, writers have no freedom on TV. One rude suggestion, and the censors are straight on their back. Not on their back in a rude way."

"Have you any idea how successful censorship is on TV? Don't know the answer? Hmm. Successful, isn't it?"

"Well, most people would agree that censors are a silly breed. In fact, it surprises me how they ever manage to breed at all."

"Now, I'm no librarian - in fact, I don't know what star sign I am - but, as a famous person once said, `You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' And as I - another more famous person - once said, `If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like!'"

Murray: Those that can, do. Those that can't, censor it.

Theora Jones: [reading a list of complaints from the network Censor] "I have noted three 'damns,' four 'hells,' sixteen cases of sexual innuendo, a reference to self-abuse, two veiled remarks about Network presidents, and a joke about the Son of God." Doesn't say which god.
Edison Carter: I'm sure it's the current one. It's probably the guy who's running the Censor computer.

Ben Cheviot: Override Censor? Good God, Murray! I'm the Chairman, not the Creator!

And lastly, from a different episode, but more on-point to your "not the government" observation:

Edison Carter: Security Systems has its tendrils into every element of our society - the government, our homes, the police, the courts - I'm not gonna spike this story just because it deals with dollar amounts beyond your comprehension! It's too important!
Murray: ...cerebral...
Theora Jones: Murray, we're trying to play this takeover as a threat to our average viewer. Nobody knows who's doing it. I mean, we all deal with SS every day - what if some really dangerous people got control of it?
Murray: Who do you think controls it now?

Re:You don't say

[X0563511]

Muhammed != Muhammad != Mohammed != Mohammad

Re:You don't say

[jasmusic]

Muhammad wasn't a prophet, he was a death-obsessed pedophile who was jealous of all the attention that the rest of the world gave to the Jewish-born Jesus. Then to get the men into his army he gave them a fake religion that lied about endless sex in heaven and said God speaks Arabic not Hebrew and God's chief prophet was Arab not Jewish (he really wasn't fond of them Joooz). If I really believed that horseshit maybe I'd also be flying planes into buildings after sniffing lines and visiting strip clubs. Hypocrites, all of em.

Jesus's public access show

[twoallbeefpatties]

If you want to get really deep into it, they actually portray Jesus as a pretty nice guy. They've shown the church doing some terrible things, but Jesus is just a guy trying to answer people's questions on his little TV show. He even forgave the whole town for betting against him in his boxing match with Satan. SP!Jesus seems like a decent guy. ...Y'know, not that fundamentalists ever pick up on small things like that.

Re:Jesus's public access show

[adamofgreyskull]

If you want to get really deep into it, they actually portray Jesus as a pretty nice guy. They've shown the church doing some terrible things, but Jesus is just a guy trying to answer people's questions on his little TV show. He even forgave the whole town for betting against him in his boxing match with Satan. SP!Jesus seems like a decent guy. ...Y'know, not that fundamentalists ever pick up on small things like that.

Not a Christian myself, but I would think that portraying Jesus like that would be the sort of thing that would offend "extremist" Christians, demeaning him to the status of a talk-show host. You're right of course though, the character of Jesus is a nice guy. But then so is Mohammed in the SBF episode...

In the Super Best Friends episode, Jesus is shown as not being able to do miracles, i.e. to turn water into wine, he gets Stan to turn aroound, and to do the miracle of the loaves and fish he has the entire audience turn around, while David Blaine (leader of the cult of Blaine-tology ha!) does awesome magic. This prompts Jesus to travel to the SBF HQ to seek help. He does this by telling Stan to close his eyes, while they board an aeroplane...

The funny thing is, in that episode, the character of Mohammed is portrayed as pretty awesome, more so than Jesus, whose attempts at magic are ineffectual. And in fact, when David Blaine animates the statue of Lincoln, and "Moses" tells the Super Best Friends that they have to build "a giant stone John Wilkes-Booth", it's Mohammed, "the prophet of Islam with the powers of flame" who organises them all, telling Krishna to gather wood for a mould and Seaman to get water and he himself goes off to find sources of concrete. Jesus' contribution is to use his carpentry skills to construct the mould.

Re:You don't say

[grumbel]

The “treat” from Muslim extremists is ridiculously low. Negligible even.

Not when you do high profile mocking of Mohamed. On the other side doctors doing abortions have had their fair share of trouble with christian anti-abortion groups as well.

Re:You don't say

[McGiraf]

Your right. But most religions at one point did advocate killing people. but not indiscriminately, The victims had to be of a different faith.

Re:You don't say

[McGiraf]

lol, a religion that follows the old testament, how ludicrous!

duh.

Re:You don't say

[joebagodonuts]

Not so innocent. CC owes quite a bit to Matt and Trey.

Re:You don't say

[jayveekay]

If they don't follow the teachings of Christ, then they're not Christians. They can call themselves "Christians", but that doesn't make them Christians.

Actions speak louder than words.

Sheeple

[p51d007]

Until the world gets a backbone, look for more of this BS. Everyone is "afraid" to offend islamic terrorist goons, but feel it is ok to sh*t on any other religion they want to. Screw the islamic goat screwing idiots.

Re:You don't say

[McGiraf]

Being absolutely non religious an a devout atheist (sic), I cannot sin.

If any of you Christians want to get a good old stoning going, give me a call.

I'll gladly throw the first stone, for a fee.

Re:You don't say

[mundanetechnomancer]

how did you get sneakers out of IMMINENT FEAR OF DEATH AND/OR GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM?
but, logically, if someone wants to steal from you, they don't want to get caught. The quickest way to prevent pursuit is to injure those who would do so. I have never been robbed. But, if i were to be robbed, i have no reason to suspect that those who wish to have my things would want me to keep my health as well. Almost anyone who checks on a noise in the night carries a baseball bat, or some other melee weapon, just in case. but i'm suddenly a nut for carrying a gun to check it out instead? no one thinks twice about someone who practices martial arts, and could kill someone in the blink of an eye with the skill they have acquired, yet i'm suspect because i wish to carry a small gun?

Re:You don't say

[McGiraf]

Of course he would be anti-stoning when he's the one about to be stoned.

I wouldn't, everybody must get stoned!

Re:You don't say

[Mr. Flibble]

Well thats the old part. I am hardly a theology scholar, but I think (could be wrong) a lot of the stuff in the new testament was ment to invalidate the old stuff, like stoning. So if someone is doing it for Jebus then they should be likewise against that stuff. If they just follow the old testament then they aren't really Christains, but that would be some valid form of religion I guess.

Maybe you should read that "new" part a little more closely:

  Matthew:

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

5:18 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.

Here, Jesus is saying that he approves of the old laws (old testament), and that those laws are in place "Till heaven and earth pass". Or, as one might say "forever".

Re:You don't say

[joebagodonuts]

Bullshit. They DID sign up to let South Park offend everyone. They've made a killing giving South Park free reign. It's hypocritical as hell for them to suddenly do otherwise.

If it isn't OK, then it isn't OK - even if you will make a lot of money. That's my issue with this. If CC is going to make a decision that says "we don't want to offend" then apply that principle equally. But don't puss out because someone made a threat. Stand up for the principles you've stood by to this point; "We don't give a shit about sensibilities because it make us boatloads of money"

episode

[ogmaheme]

and in doing this the episode has successfully broken the fourth wall into little tiny pieces

Re:You don't say

[Bigjeff5]

They all have their own thing, but the Middle East is the only one that comes across as 13-year-old AOL users.

How do you think they learned english?

the fucking crazy thing is

[commodoresloat]

The guy in the bear suit wasn't even Muhammed. As became clear in episode 201, it was fucking Santa Claus. So these idiots who posted the threat on the website were essentially upset because Santa Claus was represented in a bear suit that a bunch of redheads had been tricked into believing was Muhammed. Just wrong on so many levels.

And by the way, the idiots who posted the threat really are just idiots posting on a website, not representative even of jihadist Muslims much less of mainstream or even "hardline" Muslims.

Re:the fucking crazy thing is

[mcgrew]

The guy in the bear suit wasn't even Muhammed. As became clear in episode 201, it was fucking Santa Claus.

Muhammed was in a bear suit fucking Santa Clause? No wonder the Muslims are pissed off!

Re:the fucking crazy thing is

[Tim C]

The guy in the bear suit wasn't even Muhammed. As became clear in episode 201, it was fucking Santa Claus.

According to the report I read (though I'm having trouble finding it now), that was one of the changes that was made in light of the controversy.

Not that I'm defending them in any way, of course.

Re:the fucking crazy thing is

[omglolbah]

If they're so damn upset about an episode of southpark....

Do they really expect us to take them seriously when they respond with the kind of images used...?

If they expect to get away with something that close to a death threat they should just shut the fuck up about mohammad already...

This says it all:
http://www.omglolbah.net/ksh/pictures/random/farmville_mohammad.png

No Shit!

[rxan]

I remember when Fox censored the Walmart episode so that you couldn't see the people crap their pants when they died. Then there was the eat in your butt and crap out your mouth episode. They censored that, too. What's wrong? Everybody shits... and apparently some people shit out of their mouths, too.

Re:No Shit!

[vandelais]

I must have missed that episode of House. Did Kutner eat some bad curry?

Re:You don't say

[McGiraf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

There was no TV when this particular religion could do that kind of stuff.

Believe me, if they still could they still would.

Re:You don't say

[TheDarAve]

buying oil from states deliberately doomed to tyranny by our wise foreign policy.

Texas? O_o

PR

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure this is a PR stunt.

Inaccurate Summary

[dangitman]

last week's South Park (episode 200) depicted Muhammad, founder of Islam, concealed in a bear suit.

This is incorrect. It was actually Santa Claus in the bear costume.

Re:Inaccurate Summary

[vandelais]

As it turned out, last week's South Park (episode 200) depicted Muhammad, founder of Islam, concealed in a Tom Cruise suit

Re:Inaccurate Summary

[penguinchris]

I don't think it's clear that's the case, because they *did* have him in the locker in the alleyway... I think it was implied that initially they did have Muhammad (is that the generally accepted way of spelling it?) in the bear suit in the previous episode, but that they switched him out with Santa Claus when they were giving him to the gingers.

thank you for your pessimism

[circletimessquare]

pessimism leads people to give up, and accept the unacceptable. pessimism is the ideology of slaves

luckily for the rest of us, pragmatists and optimists alike, your world view doesn't actually decide how the real world plays out. it defines the sad arc of your life, not my life. so step aside, give in to your ignorant helplessness and shut up, and let those of who think we can actually still make difference actually make a fucking difference

Re:thank you for your pessimism

[Hatta]

You may well be right there. It's hard not to be pessimistic when the political trend my entire life has been one of decreasing the power of the people and increasing power for reactionary conservatives. Especially disheartening when the only hint of civil resistance I've ever experienced is in response to the government actually trying to do something good for it's people for once. We've been steadily marching towards the right for at least the past 30 years, and I don't see it stopping any time soon. I'd love to be convinced that I'm wrong.

Re:thank you for your pessimism

[mcgrew]

pessimism is the ideology of slaves

The optimist is disappointed, the pessimist is happily surprised. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Re:You don't say

[CaseCrash]

He didn't mention Christianity. You put all of your issues into his message, nice going. Other religions being filled with shit-bags doesn't stop the fact that Mohamed had sex with girls that we would today consider underage. Documented, in his own religious book.

However, I understand your rage and am with you brother

Re:You don't say

[blackraven14250]

Wow, WOOOSH to the extreme!

Mohammed was in a BEAR COSTUME.

meta joke

[gmuslera]

When i saw it, really tought that was a metajoke, Sometimes you could think that something is objectionable so censoring would be right... but it could take away the good parts too or make everything lose meaning . In fact tought that the show creators missed a great opportunity of making Muhammad to speak and say something that the show characters think its insightful, enlightning, etc, but as got censored none of the spectators (muslims or not) couldnt get.

Re:meta joke

[Blackhalo]

When i saw it, really tought that was a metajoke Me too. It seemed too absurd to be anything but intentional.

Re:You don't say

[blackraven14250]

No, that would be iKing.

this is a job

[circletimessquare]

for anonymous

where are you hordes of slovenly /b/tards?

scientology was a dwarf. before you stands the goliath of muslim fundamentalism. take an aim and swing. i want images of muhammad every fucking where

do you what you do best oh great low iq hivemind

do it for the EPIC LULZ

UNLEASH THE MUHAMMAKRAKEN

NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND ONE NIGHTS!!!!!!

force is lack of moral authority

[blueworm]

Any time force is threatened, the threatening party has lost moral authority. If you seek to affect moral change in somebody, then your own representation of your ideals should be enough to convince them.

Re:force is lack of moral authority

[JDSalinger]

If only everyone would employ basic logic and skepticism, and not be scared to talk about it, dogma could become a part of our history and naturally remove itself from the mainstream. Children could actually receive the honest answers to the difficult questions in life. Really... why follow a religion with all of its inconsistencies and human manipulation? You shouldn't. It is 2010 and none of the popular religions can even begin to serve as a useful algorithm with regard to moral decisions we routinely face (much less can these religions aid in the world of epistemology and they blatantly fail in the world of cosmology). As far as morality goes, it may truly be as simple as The Beatles put it: "All you need is love." Yet this is no simple task and everyone must reconcile the value of other's wellbeing and happiness within the context of their own ambition. "For one human being to love another; that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation."

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[fermion]

Let's see about christians. Killing civilians at the holocaust museum. Killing civilians at the Atlanta Olympics. Killing children in Oklahoma. Enetering a church and shooting at children, killing others who are at church. Killing children in Waco. Killing Doctors in small towns. Torturing and killing minorities. Pickiting funerals expressing how glad they are the people are dead because god obviously wants them dead. Telling the public that it is god's will that thousands of men, women and children are dead.

I am sure that many will say that the persons who do these things aren't christian. But who are you to say? They say they are christian. When a self identified muslim kills someone, people are fast enough to implicate the entire faith of Islam, no one seems to think that these people are just wingnuts, rougue elements. But when a prominent member of the First Baptist Church in North Myrtle Beach threatens a elected leaders life, we do not condemn the entire congregation, or the baptist faith, we just assume that one member is a dangerous wingnut, and pray that she never has any authority.

I don't know why there is not more christian violence. I say more because there is a lot. For instance the kids who are going around killing immigrants. What is think is that we don't think about because most of is random. Very little of it is directed, you know, some wacko sending anthrax though the mail. Alot of it is just some good old boys thinking they start beating up on their fellow students, and then crying when the fellow students start beating back.

Its meant to be bleeped out..

[quantumpineal]

you can tell at the very end its just meant to be a joke..

Re:You don't say

[mog007]

I can claim to be an atheist that believes in God

No, you can't. The very definition of atheist is "without belief in a god or gods". The two positions are mutually exclusive.

Re:You don't say

[zeugma-amp]

I suggest you look at the passage in question again. It wasn't Jesus who was to be stoned. It was an adultress.

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really want to start comparing the number of people murdered by "Muslims" to the number of people murdered by "Christians?" I guarantee you the Muslims have the higher body count - substantially. In fact, here's Islam's dirty little secret: most Muslims who die violently do so at the hands of *gasp* OTHER MUSLIMS. Stop trying to create some bizarre moral equivalence where none exists. Muslims are by definition violent. Their understanding of their religion hasn't evolved one iota since day 1.

Fuck Mohammed.

Fuck Allah.

Fuck those pig-fucking, clit-gouging, head-chopping, wife-beating Mudslums.

Hmm ...

[tqk]

Doesn't this mean that SP didn't do anything to alter what they wanted to say, meaning they *learned nothing from the fatwa threat and are, therefore, still subject to it?!!!*

Guy's, I got your six. Someone wanna lend me an assault rifle? And teach me what to do with it? Please?

Don't forget to show all your cleavage on the 26th.

Gahd, what a nutbar Universe this's turned out to be.

Re:You don't say

[Buelldozer]

So you've got a couple of Christian Crazies in your office talking about maybe doing something. Big fucking deal. Get back to me when they're chopping peoples heads off or murdering them for cartoons.

Don't bother to bitch

[bussdriver]

Comedy Central won't care unless you make death threats. It worked before... besides you are opposing a more extreme group do you think they will risk management for SOME profits??? Writers quite possibly, employees sure-- but management?

Re:You don't say

[amiga3D]

They launch those Hellfires from A-10's too. We need to keep funding those also. They make great tank killers. Thanks for the support and have a nice day. :)

Re:You don't say

[ZaphDingbat]

With great power comes great responsibility, even if it is just a comedy channel.

Re:You don't say

[somenickname]

Protip: There was a time when Christians acted like this. It’s called THE DARK AGES!
It was a desperate time. With crusades, inquisitions, but most of all, power-greedy dicks controlling people.
This is the exact same thing now. Only in the Muslim world.

It's not only in the Muslim world that we still have these things. We just have better PR Guys than the Muslims and so we lump all these activities into something we call "The War on Terror".

Re:You don't say

[WesternActor]

And it wasn't even Muhammad! It was Santa Claus!

Re:You don't say

[modecx]

Well met, fellow freedom loving, gun toting, liberal atheist American... Well met indeed.

Oh, scared?

[Aphoxema]

Terrorists win.

Re:Harry Potter was right

[Aphoxema]

'Muhammed' is the new 'Voldemort'.

Shhh! We dare not speak his name!

Re:You don't say

[hairyfeet]

As someone who live right smack dab in the middle of the bible belt, I can say that isn't true, they simply follow Supply Side Jesus as the other one came off kinda weak, with the whole "loving thy neighbor" stuff.

As for Islam, the problem with Islam is it really is an "us VS them" war, and we are losing badly even if they don't fire another shot! At the current rate pretty much all of Europe will be "Islamaland" in less than 60 years, simply because they treat their women like cattle, and keep them breeding.

But we have to stop this PC shit NOW, right this minute, and tell those that scream "racist" to STFU, because the simple fact is Muslims don't play nice with anyone else. Hell they don't even play nice with other Muslims, see Sunni VS Shia for an example. We just can't afford to let Islam spread like a cancer all over this planet, we just can't. Everything that we hold dear, like freedom of speech, they hold in contempt. I am old enough to remember when everyone feared the Commies, but Muslims make old Joe Stalin seem like a choirboy in comparison. Play close attention to that second video I linked to, and see what happens every single time that the Muslim population gets over 25-30%. And over 45% you start having such wonderful things like "ethnic cleansing" and I'll give you a hint...It ain't the non Muslims doing the cleansing.

So we really cannot afford to wait and hope that the Muslims become a more peaceful and civilized religion, because we simply don't have the time. And with today's technology the amount of destruction that can be done by fanatics with money is just insane. We worry now about what will happen when Iran gets the bomb, but what about in 50 years or less when all of Europe is dominated and controlled by Muslims, what then?

Piss on

[Jawn98685]

Comedy Central for letting terrorists win.
And while we're at it, piss on The Prophet Mohamed, Jesus, Yaweh, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and any other deity who needs his human followers to do his wet work for him. If those "supreme beings" have an issue with what I say about them, they know where I live. We can sort it out in person. The rest of you, STFU and relax already. I mean, they're gods. Right? Do you really think they need your help?
Please note that I did not say, "Piss on Christians, Muslims, Jews, Pastafarians, etc." Believe it or not, I am a very religious person and I am offended when someone insults my choice of beliefs. But fight about it? Kill them over it? That's just stupid. My spiritual beliefs are my business. Your faith is your business. Why can't we leave it at that?

You are very confused

[Sycraft-fu]

The problem with the situation in Iraq is that the US's goal was to occupy the country and bring about a peaceful democracy. That is a tough goal when the people don't want it and the army isn't designed for it. The US has never had an army of conquest, it is not an army with massive manpower needed to occupy a country. It is an army designed to kill effectively, something it does extremely well. You'll note that the Iraqi army was smashed in days, with next to no loss on the US side.

I'm not talking about going in and occupying countries, I'm talking about killing people. If radical country X attacks the US because their crazys don't like South Park, the US attacks them and wipes out the crazies. They don't stick around. The idea is deterrence and prevention, not nation building.

As a practical matter, that isn't likely to be necessary. If there are attacks it is probably just lone crazies. For that we have a competent criminal justice system. Ideally they are stopped before hand, with deadly force if necessary, and if you they are tried and imprisoned or executed.

Oh and have you had a look at the world economy? This down turn is not a US thing and is not related to military spending, but rather to the collapse of a bubble caused by rampant speculation, poor regulation, and odd financial products.

I don't care what your values are

[Sycraft-fu]

I'm not required to. However America's values (and my values) place freedom of speech extremely highly. It is the very top of the bill of rights. As such, in America it should be protected at nearly all costs, even if it pisses others off.

So if you live in a culture that doesn't like free speech, fine, I don't care. That's not my problem and we have NO reason at all to be "sensitive" about your culture. Especially when those cultures don't seem to be "sensitive" about ours.

Re:I don't care what your values are

[ramberk]

You said it yourself, "I don't care what your values are." That's exactly what -they- also say. And that's the problem I have with anyone who thinks their beliefs are so superior that its fine for them to trample over others.

Re:I don't care what your values are

[Sycraft-fu]

The difference is I'm not going to go and force them, with violence, to implement my values. Big difference. Freedom is all about saying "I a can do want I want, you can do want you want, neither one of us can stop the other." That means I'm free to make fun of you, you are free to make fun of me, but you are not free to stop me from making fun of you.

So I don't care about the beliefs of those that say "You shouldn't have free speech." I'm not going to stop them from having those beliefs, I'm not going to stop them from expressing those beliefs. However I'm not at all going to say they should have a right to try and force them violently on others, nor am I going to agree with their position.

Re:I don't care what your values are

[ted_smiles]

Anybody that threatens Americans for exercising their free speach is a terrorist. Terrorist are our enemies. Anybody (including Comedy Central) that goes along with those terrorist are in effect aiding an enemy durring a time of war, and that is punishable by the death penalty. Any lawyers out there want a famous case?

Re:You don't say

[Keen Anthony]

I've met religious zealots before -- none Muslim, and what I learned from being open-minded to their beliefs and killing them with kindness so to speak, is that I often am regarded as one of the "good ones", an exception to an otherwise horrible lot of people that ought to be either put on an island somewhere or converted. To me, religious extremists are unreasonable, and you can only gain so much with them. You can never be one of them in their eyes. At best, you're a pet. Still, it's admirable to try, and it doesn't help to go provoking overly sensitive people.

On the other hand, perhaps OP is a dick, but going through life having to make special exceptions for Muslims is absolutely unreasonable. We are not bound by Muslim law in this part of the world, and we resist attempts to have our freedom of expression taken from us in order to please them. There is nothing special about the Muslim sensitivity that it deserves this treatment. I would say the same of other religious extremists too however, including various Christian groups.

your argument is backwards

[circletimessquare]

christians do violent things. ok. that implies what? that it is therefore ok that muslims do violent things?

the proper response is that when christians do violent things, we denounce them. and when muslims do violent things, we denounce them

your argument seems to be "because christians do violent things we can't criticize the muslims who do violent things"

bullshit. i condemn both. so stand with me and condemn these violent muslim fundamentalist assholes

Re:your argument is backwards

[Golddess]

GP never said any such thing. GP's entire argument is that Muslims aren't violent as a whole, it's only a minority of Muslims who are violent. Yet we condemn them all. Contrast that with the fact that again only a minority of Christians are violent, but this time we only condemn that minority.

Re:your argument is backwards

[Tim C]

No, his point was "when Christians do violent things, we denounce them personally; yet when Muslims do violent things, we denounce the entire religion".

I've read your reply to Golddess's reply, and I accept that *you* do not act like that (and for that matter, neither do I); however, entire media organisations and even political parties do, and I have certainly read enough comments here and on other websites to know that there are plenty of people who do.

Perhaps they too are a minority; I certainly hope that they are. However they are an extremely vocal minority, and the majority is largely silent on the matter.

Wheres Waldo? Mohammed hidden on the website now.

[CrAlt]

Goto http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3878

The South Park logo.. to the left of their "Statement".

Right click and view the bigger version of the image

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/default/image.jpg

Look right below satan. To the left of the "H" in the sign.

Err.. to the RIGHT of the "H"

[CrAlt]

My bad :-/

Religion is dangerous

[Snaller]

All of it.

Re:Religion is dangerous

[jahudabudy]

Religion is powerful. All power is dangerous.

Re:You don't say

[flyneye]

There are just as many self justified, ill informed Christians as there are Muslims. This is not all of them.
The contrast that strikes me most though is; we sit on our violently extreme sects and prevent them from "killing the infidels where you find them" like 'Christian Identity' and other such radical groups. Muslims protect Muslims, right or wrong and do nothing more than decry the extremists from a safe anonymous distance without any action to back it up.
I think some show of successful effort on the "good" Muslims part to delete the "Violent and Pedos " amongst their numbers should be seen before trusting a single word ANY of them have to say.

They must replace all the heads of Comedy Central

[SupremoMan]

With Manatees!

Tonight on Comedy Central

[Nidi62]

On Thursdays, Comedy Central usually shows Wed night's new episodes. They showed last night's episode of Ugly Americans, the newest episode. However, for South Park, they showed the Facebook one from two weeks ago. Not last night's, not the 200th episode, the 199th episode from 2 weeks ago that was not at all controversial.

Re:You don't say

[flyneye]

That's correct. "Kill the infidels where you find them" discriminates between Muslims and Non-Muslims (Infidels)

Re:You don't say

[kimvette]

No, because I watch Futurama on DVD.

Re:You don't say

[WiseWeasel]

That's a fine concern to have, but the logic is unsound. By doing this, Comedy Central is saying to people "threaten our lives and we'll do whatever you want." They're encouraging this group and others like them, practically begging to be threatened some more. This is just a complete failure on Comedy Central's part.

Re:You don't say

[vwjeff]

I heard he raped and killed a girl in 1990. That's just what I was told. Don't know if it's true.

Re:You don't say

[totally bogus dude]

A-10s carry Mavericks, not Hellfire.

lost my faith in educated USians

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't seem to quite express my sadness at the responses that pop up when stories like this hit. Especially from a broadly educated crowd, like /. attracts. But, I guess part of it is that nerds tend to be on the 'judging' end of the spectrum.

Look, criticizing Islam in the US today is NOTHING like criticizing Jesus. Since 9/11 it's practically national belief that all Arabs are Muslim, and all Muslims are Terrorists. YOU might not think that way (whilst pointing out all the flaws in Islam), but you won't have to work hard to find someone that does. You think what happened to Borat at the rodeo was a singular event? Get real. We live in a world of racial profiling, and ignorant assumptions. Look at the comments that are modded 'insightful' or 'informative' and you'll see a long list of 'Islam is evil/wrong/violent', which is unacceptable in this age. I truly feel sorry for people who live in our country having been raised with an Islamic belief system. The stories of community outrage/fear are depressingly numerous - all for what? Because there are people who have hijacked a religion and use it to exploit violence? That's unique to Islam? Tell that to your friendly community safe and legal abortion doctor. The US today is a country with a mob mentality against Islam, and a country where Jesus is absolutely EVERYWHERE - it's not a level playing field from the get go when it comes to satire.

Then there are all the blatantly racist comments referring to a group of savages that haven't had their Enlightenment. As though the average person gets to choose their religion. I'm an atheist, and I was raised in a semi-religious household, as I know that a massive number of people here on /. are, but the fact of the matter is that for most people religion is not about choice, but is a matter of birthright. Becoming a terrorist is a choice, but believing in Jesus over Muhommed is trained, and especially for large parts of humanity that live in abject poverty and have no opportunities for education and learning about differing cultures, it's nearly impossible to change one's religious belief because it is incorporated into life as fundamental fact and necessity. You think it's a coincidence that poor/uneducated are on average massively more committed to religion than wealthy/educated?

All this righteous indignation about a group of people that have a simple rule – we don't like images of our prophet? Are you kidding me? We can't even teach SCIENCE in public schools in this country because the fucking 'word of God as giving by the Holy Bible' doesn't support it (even if the damn Pope does!)! We murder people for lawfully giving women a choice on pregnancy, even when it's a fundamental issue of safety. We have a long history, up until only 50 years ago, of murdering people one at a time for having the wrong religion or race! You think it's dangerous to mock Islam (out of nothing but sanctimonious hostility thinly veiled behind censorship arguments)? Imagine being Jewish and traveling through Mississippi in 1940. Hell, the cast of Top Gear was attacked down there just a couple years ago!

Get off your fucking racist, and Muslim, high goddamn horses people. No one superstition has more rights than any other, but if you're going to pretend it's all equal and fair in this country, you're pretending we live in a more diverse and more balanced world than we do.

Re:You don't say

[jasmusic]

Do you remember when Muslim armies tried to invade Europe and conquer the hemisphere? That was before the Crusades even!

Re:You don't say

[laddiebuck]

Most powerful and technologically advanced? Japan has always had a tottering economy, a lack of innovation (they just used to take Western products and do them smaller and cheaper) and no serious (and certainly no independent) military. If it weren't for their car industry they'd have gone under. No, Japan is anything but a success story. Germany now is different, they really are a success story, but they had heavy investment from the Allies to buffer against Russia.

Re:You don't say

[spirality]

That was a long time ago. We are no longer that people.

I call bullshit

[Boawk]

Wanna know what I do when I meet a religious extremist? I do a little nice gesture, that makes their life better, and causes them to instantly like me.

You mean like Nick Berg?

Jumped the Shark, anyway

[BlueBoxSW.com]

I can't stand that show anymore. Removed it from the Tivo list.

While I have no problem with them poking fun at all things, they never get around to stating their own beliefs.

I think you have to take a stand, right or wrong, if you want your comedy to be important.

Otherwise you're just chucking eggs at people and calling it funny.

Re:Jumped the Shark, anyway

[miffo.swe]

All they do nowadays is kicking in open doors. They wont dare taking on things like israeli lobbyism, afganistan, Iran, irak, palestine, south america, US foreign policy or anything even remotely sensitive. The greed that has put american factories in China making countless americans out of work just for very shortsighted profits isnt something i expect them to cover either.

Poking fun at radical muslims are about as courageous as telling a redneck nascar sucks and that jesus blows Hulk Hogan every night.

Re:Jumped the Shark, anyway

[ErikZ]

Then you haven't been paying attention. People are being killed over this stuff.

Re:Jumped the Shark, anyway

[Eli Gottlieb]

They wont dare taking on things like israeli lobbyism, afganistan, Iran, irak, palestine, south america, US foreign policy or anything even remotely sensitive. The greed that has put american factories in China making countless americans out of work just for very shortsighted profits isnt something i expect them to cover either.

You do realize that South Park is not the television wing of the foreign-policy radical left?

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

...If they just follow the old testament then they aren't really Christains....

...they're Jewish.

is this not common knowledge?

Re:You don't say

[telomerewhythere]

You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?

What about, "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." Mt 24:9

Even the disciples carried swords, you dimwit.

Yes and "'Put away your sword,' Jesus told him. 'Those who use the sword will die by the sword.'" --Mt 26:52

A paradoy of your deity might be considered a petty insult. This is the instance where you turn the other cheek. You don't go around killing people for this...

I agree as to this would be a proper time for a Christian to turn the other cheek. Further, Jesus (as described in the Bible) never taught for his followers to hurt or kill anyone. In fact, Christians for at least 100 years after Jesus died would not become or stay soldiers. Neither did they hold political office. Contrast that with every single POTUS

As to deities, Muhammad is a man, Allah is the deity. But you wouldn't get that from the reaction of the Muslims referenced in this story.

Re:You don't say

[Keen Anthony]

A few year ago, I would have agreed that all but the most far out sects have abandoned those ideals, but I'm not so sure today. I wonder how many hardcore Christians would stone -- or in the modern version, shoot or bomb, a disbeliever or some other sinner if only they could get away with it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What I wrote in Comedy Central's comment box

[Chowderbags]

Censoring yourselves due to fear of violence is a quick way to the bottom. If any nutjobs can threaten you and you'll back down, you might as well just show Teletubbies all day (until someone complains of gay overtones, then you have to stick to static). Your network wants to think it's edgy by airing movies without bleeping a couple swears, but you can't even say one person's name. Just a name. That's it. All because there's some possibility that already unbalanced people (who probably already hate you anyway) will go off the deep end and commit violence? There's always the possibility that someone will commit violence against you, but you can't live in fear because of that. You can't hide your thoughts and hope that crazy people won't act crazy. You can't censor an idea just because someone might not like it. Because if you do, you'll just be giant fucking pussies waiting for the next person trying to fuck you.

you are committing the same sin you criticize

[circletimessquare]

"Yet we condemn them all."

who is "we"?

there are indeed a MINORITY of western morons who think that a violent fundamentalist muslim asshole represents the entire of islam faith

but i don't think that, and you don't think that, and plenty others understand this obvious point

so stop condemning ALL westerners/ americans/ media for committing a sin only a MINORITY commit

currently you are a massive hypocrite, because you are committing the same logical fallacy you condemn: that a few wester idiots represent all of western opinion

Re:You don't say

[Keen Anthony]

Clearly you didn't get what he said. There's a difference between being a gun-toting American and a gun-toting American who's out preaching that the end is fucking nigh, hides his children, and then marches down main street with a gun in one hand and a bible in the other while threatening to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and incidentally anyone else who doesn't agree with him. At some point, those particular gun-toting Americans begin to look awfully like the Taliban

you are committing the same sin you criticize

[circletimessquare]

", we tend to give their faith, in this case baptist, the benefit of the doubt."

who is "we"?

there are indeed a MINORITY of western morons who think that a violent fundamentalist muslim asshole represents the entirety of islam, and violent fundamentalist christian assholes get a free pass

but i don't think that, and you don't think that, and plenty others understand this obvious point

so stop condemning ALL westerners/ americans/ media for committing a sin only a MINORITY commit

currently you are a massive hypocrite, because you are committing the same logical fallacy you condemn: that a few wester idiots represent all of western opinion

Re:You don't say

[FliesLikeABrick]

Parent is incorrect -

Nowhere did CC or Trey/Parker say that the images of Cruise or Mohammed being censored were not part of the show. It was the *auditory* censorship that was added by CC prior to airing. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the CENSORED box over Mohammed and Cruise were not part of the episode itself (without that, the point of Cruise being censored would have been weaker). I'd love to be proven wrong on this, I really would - however everything I have seen indicates that only the aural censorship was imposed by CC, and that's what the official statements I've seen have said. The only places I've seen anything saying that the black boxes were added by CC were by posts like this and unauthoritative blogs by authors who may have been equally ill-informed. I see that the parent is saying CC may have censored Cruise as a joke - but I haven't seen anything to suggest CC did that, only the beeping/aural censoring.

Like I said, I'd love to see a statement or other proof to the contrary. Either way CC toppled on this way too easily and for no reason, that argument isn't damaged by this.

Re:No. Christians kill too. It's rare for Muslims.

[Keen Anthony]

I think the network censored the episode out of fear of violent Muslim reaction. I am confident that in the current political climate, I can get away with saying something mean-spirited about Muslims. I don't think many non-Muslims will rush to criticize me.

I didn't mind the censoring. As you said, it is their network, they decide what's put on it. That's the business of television. But I do mind a more general (even if informal) policy of not offending Muslims because it makes Muslims a protected group and forces everyone to bend to their cultural expectations. The nature of the offense also bothers me. It seems that groups like Revolution Muslim are more offended that non-believers discussed Mohammad in any context, positive or negative. I understand their faith has a rule that Mohammad cannot be depicted visually in any form. But that is their rule, not mine. And I'd rather not be censored from creating a cartoon of Mohammad -- good or bad, because of their own religious rule. I would be similarly angered if I was barred from eating meat on fridays or from eating at all during Rosh Hashanah.

And when Revolution Muslim issues a statement that says I will die or should die or may possibly die as a result of not following one of laws of their religion, that makes me less willing to engage with Muslim culture in a positive way.

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[zullnero]

Yes, yes, yes, Christians have bad people too. We get it. But that's not what this is about. It's about knee-jerk reactions to the very limited depiction of a holy figure in a cartoon. A holy figure that most people have no idea what he looks like anyway, so we basically have to put his name with an arrow pointing at the figure to tell who it might be.

If you want this to slip into a "well, Christians have bad people too" thing, South Park makes Jesus Christ a recurring character all the time. The number of protests against those episodes have been relatively limited. No attempts by Christian assassins have been reported on the lives of either Matt Stone nor Trey Parker. The Scientologists pretty much had the biggest tiff against South Park, and even that was more of a huff than a "march in the streets burning things in effigy" thing.

We all know there are bad people in all religions. But the point of this is about humorous depiction, and all religions in the world have had their figures depicted humorously at times. But only one religion seems to put out a death sentence on anyone who does it to their major figure, even though almost no one even knows exactly what he looked like and generally has to be drawn as a crude stereotype with his name pointed at him for anyone to know. Which is also really sad, and I don't mean that in a mocking way, in a lot of ways.

Re:If that's how they respond...

[dwarfsoft]

It's coming right for us!

Re:You don't say

[Ricdude]

1. Attack the US.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:You don't say

[Lemmy Caution]

There are just as many

Really? That's some pretty amazing quantitative research you did there. And what an amazing coincidence: despite each religious traditions having over a billion adherents, the number of self-justified, ill-informed ones is exactly the same!

Please tell me more about the nature, origins and transmission of this self-justification and ill-information.

Re:tolerance of intolerance

[jameskojiro]

What is to stop Fred Phelp's crazy Westboro Baptist idiots from starting to threaten to "Theo-Van Goh" anyone who makes fun of Jesus? By Acquiescing to this group about the Prophet -BLEEP- they open the door to other Fundamentalists from other Religions to start muscling in the censorship territory. Next thing we know shampoo commercials will be banned because the Mormons think they are obscene....

This is a precedent to set.

Re:You don't say

[flyneye]

Who are you? Professor Pedantic?
Numbers give you a stiffie?
You can't get a simple point without erectile dysfunction?

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

The Declaration of Independence, whose signers signed it under penalty of death. THAT is where it is written.

They were rejecting, standing up to, a king, and rejecting the very notion of a king.

You do know what a king was, right? A ruler who was believed to have derived his power from divine authority blessing his ancestral family.

In other words, our very nation is based on rejecting religion as ruler.

If you fail to abide by these "ideals" then you are essentially rejecting your own country.

"It's easy to bash on Comedy Central when you aren't the one in danger." Kowtowing to religion puts us all in danger.

And

[mahadiga]

Muslims are brainwashed to believe that Islam is above the Nation.
For Hindus, Casteism is above the Nation.
Now Christian missionaries are brainwashing ppl like Brahmins did for Hindus.

WWJSS

[delta98]

..I mean what would John Stewart have to say about all this..this.. Comedy?

Re:You don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

And the last time you heard of one of these "gun-toting Americans" shot someone for making fun of Jesus was...?

Oh and its great how you say "gun-toting" like owning a gun is a bad thing.

Re:You don't say

[c-reus]

Nonetheless, many Christian scholars who wish to justify the hatred they feel and the violence they desire against those they perceive as enemies have and continue to advocate such indiscriminate killing.

Notice the difference? Well, neither can I.

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[mybecq]

Let me know when you find the Christian word for Jihad.

Re:You don't say

[StrategicIrony]

ROFL.

Leviticus has like 500 commandments to stone people.

Leviticus 20:27

"'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them;"

Oye.

Re:You don't say

[carp3_noct3m]

Cognitive Dissonance: A powerful thing.

Re:You don't say

[Lemmy Caution]

No, it's just that "there are just as many" is a worn-out cliche that isn't even close to being true, a false "truism" that's trotted out without any thinking whatsoever. I'm not anti-Islam and I recognize it as a rich and complicated tradition, like Christianity. But contemporary Islamic fundamentalism is different is kind, scale and scope from Christian fundamentalism, partially for reasons that have to do with world history for the past few hundred years.

"There are just as many x as y" is repeated as a lame bromide, meant to reassure that really everyone is all the same, and prevent any real critical thought. It's stupid, and I had seen it just one time too many.

Re:You don't say

[Beachie41]

No, no need to round up all Muslims and shoot them. I'd bet the majority of them just want a peaceful life like most of us. But if the Muslim religion wants to move forward, they first need to get rid of all the minority radicals that threaten others and incite hatred and fear. Kill them, incarcerate them, do whatever is needed to purge Muslim of the crazies.

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

Mainly because they're busy humping their neighbor's wife, but still, most people in the world don't have to worry about christians shooting up a school bus full of children in the name of hay-zoos.

That's a difference in living conditions, not ideology. The vast majority of Christians believe in infinite punishment for finite crimes (Hell), which doesn't strike me as especially better than the Muslims I've talked to -- educated, middle-class college students -- who admit that their ultimate goal is Sharia law worldwide, including death for apostasy, an infidel tax, and other fun things.

Now, keep in mind, the Christian isn't planning to torture me herself, she just thinks God (or Satan) will do it, and that I deserve it. Same with the Muslim, at least the few I talked to -- he doesn't want to kill me or tax me now, and would prefer to follow the laws of the land as long as they're in effect.

Yet there's good reason to believe the guy driving my cab is trying to get his hands on some explosives to kill people with.

Well, again, note the class difference. He's driving a cab for a living.

That said, your bias is showing -- both the association between cab drivers and Muslims, and the association between Muslims (at least, American ones) and violence.

Finally:

hardly anyone, including devout christians, really believes that crap.

Just how important is your holy book to you? If you get to pick and choose what's important and what's "crap", why believe any of it at all?

Re:You don't say

[Skreems]

As for Islam, the problem with Islam is it really is an "us VS them" war, and we are losing badly [youtube.com] even if they don't fire another shot! At the current rate pretty much all of Europe will be "Islamaland" in less than 60 years, simply because they treat their women like cattle, and keep them breeding.

So instead of education, supporting civil liberties for ALL (even those you consider oppressed by Sharia), and finding a peaceful way to integrate new people into our democratic society, you support... what, exactly? Pre-emptive racial cleansing? Excluding Muslims from being able to vote? Exactly what part of the free, democratic society that you claim to love do you want to destroy in order to save it?

As far as your nutty Youtube video, I can put together a slide show of equally scary Christian people with signs. There are crazies everywhere, especially in poorer sections.

A large part of the fear-mongering that's going on around Islam is based on this nonsensical idea that we've had a safe, happy country, and the evil outsiders are coming to take it away. Bullshit. Every poor immigrant population in this country has clustered together at one time or another before integrating over several generations. We've got the Mormons holed up in Utah popping out kids, the Southern Baptists preaching brimstone, Mexican and Central American illegals setting up ghettos in the southwest. The Scientologists infiltrated the CIA in the 50s, and to this day are growing in numbers, and won't hesitate to ruin anyone who opposes them socially and financially. We've got Latino gangs in California, Black gangs on the east coast. Before that we had the Yakuza, the Italians had the Mafia, and the Irish had street gangs.

Society is always on the verge of collapse according to some people. Living in a free society means you have to put up with people you disagree with, and find a way to coexist. You can't just wipe out people who scare you. Hell, if I can learn to live in a country run by moralizing, religion-imposing Christians, I'm sure you can eventually come to grips with Islam bumping up over 1%.

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

The new testament super cedes the old with a new law.

Where and how does it do that?

Because Matt 5:17-18 seem to suggest just the opposite.

Oh, and you're wrong:

The contradictions in the bible come from the confusion that the old testament laws and the new testament laws are to be enacted at the same time.

No, the contradictions come from the fact that many authors were involved, often within a single "book", and they couldn't keep their story straight -- which is what you'd expect, whether or not it actually happened, but it certainly casts doubt on anyone trying to claim the gospels are "eyewitness accounts". There are contradictions between gospels, so even if you pretend the Old Testament doesn't exist, there's plenty of contradiction, stupidity, brutality, and outright immorality in the Bible.

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[darkmeridian]

Non sequitor, my friend. In a mostly Christian country like ours, it's no wonder that many crimes are committed by Christians. Look how many stonings and honor killings there are in Muslim countries for a fair comparison. Also, the problem with Islamic terrorism is that it is done in the name of the religion. Most of the Christians you point to are just wingnuts who kill for a reason divorced from Christianity whereas the Islamic terrorists kill because they want to make Mohammed happy. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Re:You don't say

[Skreems]

It's in a 3rd world country, but hey... Christians are Christians, right? It doesn't seem to matter to your argument what part of the world the Muslims are from when you're generalizing...

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

There's also the line "Not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all has come to pass."

So, anti-stoning? Maybe, but the law says to stone, and he said the law was in full effect. So if it's anti-stoning, that's a contradiction.

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

Go read John 8:1-11.

Right after you read Matt 5:17-18.

Re:You don't say

[Skreems]

Has anyone checked whether they just did it for comedic effect? It seems quite unlike them to censor long, preachy speeches. I mean hell, they air the rest of South Park...

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

these are instruction for the government of Israel

Israel alone? Where does it say that?

in dealing with criminal acts such as murder, rape, incest, etc.

You left out "Telling you to worship other gods." (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

Also, "Being rebellious and not listening to your parents." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

You want to keep going? I can do this all day.

Not that far from whats done in many states in the US right now.

Even if you restrict the discussion to murder, rape, and incest...

Incest is not illegal in the US, to my knowledge.

Rape is certainly illegal, but we tend to punish the rapist, not the victim. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

These laws did not apply to non Jews.

Mostly because, if the laws are followed, there are no non-Jews in the known world. (Deuteronomy 13:13-17)

Re:Religion: source of all evil

[Skreems]

Fuck Mohammed and his nine year old kid fucking condoning followers.

The Pope is Muslim now? O_O

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[Skreems]

No attempts by Christian assassins have been reported on the lives of either Matt Stone nor Trey Parker.

I haven't seen any reports of attempts on their lives by Islamic assassins either, for whatever that's worth...

Re:You don't say

[Luke has no name]

Really.

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[Skreems]

Muslim extremists have tens of billions of dollars to spend on jyhad, tens of thousands of active members, the passive and sometimes active support of several governments, a complicated communication regime, and are capable of doing hundreds of billions of dollars in damages via 9/11 style attacks and millions in plane and building bombings.

I call shenanigans. If they have 10% of the US defense budget, squadrons of members, and tacit government support, why is their best effort in the past 8 years a guy with a bomb in his jockstrap?

Seriously, it's not difficult. You get a guy here over one of our incredibly porous borders, give him a gun, and with a little creativity he could take out a major bridge or a city block. It takes a special brand of crazy, of course, but they should be able to find a couple hundred people out of the tens of thousands, and if even a quarter of those succeed they could shut our entire economy down for months.

The fact that they haven't would seem to indicate that they're not as batshit insane, and the conflict isn't so black and white as you try to paint it. Or at least that they're not nearly as well funded and organized as that.

Honestly, even the Militias you're so quick to dismiss could shut down our economy if they really wanted to. They're already here, they've already got the guns and grenades. Want to guess what would happen if five of them hijack gasoline trucks, stop in a major bridge or tunnel, and drop a grenade in? McVeigh already proved how much damage one asshole sociopath can do, and the latest Militia had a couple dozen at least.

Re:You don't say

[TheCowSaysMooNotBoo]

Saying the word shit 216 times no matter in which context doesn't get you killed. Saying Mohammed in the wrong context does.

Re:You don't say

[mirix]

Most people have fear of imminent death when being robbed, whether the fear is entirely rational or not. Don't try and tell me no one has been shot over stealing $50 items, it happens all the time.

I never claimed you were a nut for carrying, and I rather like guns myself. I was merely posting what Christ had to say about it.

This discrepancy between what Christ taught and what a lot of "Christians" practice is what led me to atheism in my formative years. How people can kill over material goods, especially incredibly low value ones, and believe they are acting as god would want is entirely beyond me.

Re:You don't say

[kwendakabisaa]

> All because people are scared of offending muslims.

The are not scared of offending Muslims, per se. They are scared of being murdered. Their fear is not unfounded and is with precedent.

Censorship is self inflicted and never under pressure from an "offended" group at least that's my experience. Muslims use intimidation and fear. For example under pressure from Muslims, Australia told them that that they have to abide Australian rules. Australia has to deal with terrorism threats but they kept their stand.

In Kenya where I am at the moment, there is a debate on whether to include Sharia courts in the constitution. Fear and intimidation is being used by the side supporting it and yet a passage in the current constitution which says that all religions are equal has been deleted. The interesting thing has been how the government has gone about dealing with the debate, anyone against it has been silenced, those for it are threatening violence if NO wins. The media has practically blocked out all descenting voices a minister has been demoted for being on the NO side. The government has invoked a hate speech law on all debates by equating intolerance to hate.( Christians are being accused of being intolerant ) Yet Muslims make up 10% of the population in Kenya.

The fear of being killed is real, but what it does is isolate Muslims by losing any goodwill. Muslims always turn against anyone who is perceived not to be on their side. Ask any Algerian if he would ever vote for an Islamic party ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War ).

Comedy Central has set a precedent that will have to be used in all its programmes. I watched the original Season 2 episode depicting Mohammed and hardly noticed it. In my view they went too far in censoring the use of his name. Censoring his image is acceptable.

Re:You don't say

[The Grand Falloon]

That's a movie. For the life of me, I can't remember the name. Some tiny European nation is going bankrupt, so they decide to send in their special forces to attack the US. Their soldiers are the best archers in the land, in like the 1970s. The plan is to attack and surrender immediately, and thus gain US protection. Of course, the plan goes awry, and... well, I wouldn't call it hilarity, but amusement ensues.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

let's clear all this shit up at once

[FuckingNickName]

1. One random web site claiming to be X is not necessarily representative of all people claiming to be X, or even one other person claiming to be X;

2. One random threat on the Internet is about as scary as any other;

3. But it makes great publicity for TP/MS/CC to pretend that (1) and (2) are false;

4. It makes even more sense for TP/MS to disclaim responsibility for the response to the threat (the Man's keeping us down, man!) - if they really weren't happy on principle, they wouldn't provide episodes, but I don't see them putting principle above contract fees;

And finally:

5. Strong free speech, the same sort of free speech which allows SP to libel and mock daily, includes the right to make threats, as long as those threats aren't carried out. What gives you the right to decide that the threat is any less parody than the libel, petty censor?

My Karma Ran Over Your Dogma

[neoshroom]

Either you're right, and it's all a fairy tale, or you're wrong and you'll burn in Hell.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs." -- 1 Corinthians 13:4-5

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me know when you find the Christian word for Jihad.

Crusade.

Re:You don't say

[wye43]

...It was a desperate time. With crusades, inquisitions, but most of all, power-greedy dicks controlling people.

Power-greedy dicks will always be controlling people. They are just getting better at lying about it. Leading is not rewarding, it's a shity job. People are doing it for money and power.

Insulting them all.

[tempest69]

Southpark insults everyone. Comparatively they treated Islam with kids gloves. The big point being made was that Islam is immune to criticism. This is a big deal, people have died from depicting Muhammad. While I agree that there was provocation, it is not enough to warrant that kind of reaction.
O totally concur that intimidation is a really bad thing.
On to the last part... whats up with your last sentence?... after the whole chat about "members of a pluralistic society....."?

Re:You don't say

[i ate my neighbour]

I literally LOLed at the long "I learnt something today" beep, and thought it was a great joke. If this was work CC, this means CC itself is a big joke.

I AM FUCKING SICK OF THIS SHIT !!!!!

[thephydes]

yes I'm shouting. Who the fucking hell do these cunts think they are. Any minority ie less than 50% who think they can tell me what I can enjoy or laugh at can go and shove their fucking beliefs up their fucking arses - because that's where they belong - in a pile of shit, Fuck off religious nutters of any persuasion.

Re:You don't say

[Hognoxious]

Mouse that roared, with Peter Sellers.

Re:You don't say

[keeboo]

Their fear is not unfounded and is with precedent.

Welcome to Cheney’s propaganda... which is just as delusional as any religion. Come one! You’re better than this! You are wise enough to make your own opinions.

The “treat” from Muslim extremists is ridiculously low. Negligible even.

Have a walk in Europe. Amsterdam is a place you may go.
See the muslim women walking in black burka-like in a sunny summer afternoon, film makers being killed by muslim fanatics, and people being prosecuted for criticizing Islam, laws being written to accomodate muslim sensibilities, mosques where violence is being preached etc.
All that under the blessing of the spineless politically-correct muslim-apologetic political rulers in Europe.

Yep, no threat at all.

Re:You don't say

[BoberFett]

I haven't seen either of those shows, but I love Always Sunny, especially when Charlie sings his song about "the good lord going down on me!"

Re:You don't say

[Nyder]

Because while Christians will turn the other cheek, and Buddhists likewise, Muslims will fucking kill you.

oh, does buddhists have pedophile priests also?

Re:You don't say

[Nyder]

Ask Japan what happens when you go suicidal on the US.

You get a few nukes dropped on you, scores of people die, then you move on with your life and build one of the most powerful and technologically advanced (albeit still suicidal) societies on Earth?

Sounds almost like a plan.

You forgot the part about the weird porn.

Re:You don't say

[L4t3r4lu5]

Sorry, that's old hat for us

He should be killed every episode

[Shivetya]

in place of Kenny. It would be much fun to see the Simpsons help out, with Bart writing on the blackboard I will bleep out all spoken references to Mohamed

Re:You don't say

[mapkinase]

"Their fear is not unfounded and is with precedent."

AlhamduliLlah. The only way to establish decent civilized norms of human verbal interaction is a reward/punishment system. I am glad it works on the matters of offending the Prophet Muhammad, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam.

Re:You don't say

[mapkinase]

I do a little nice gesture, that makes their life better, and causes them to instantly like me.
When I do it right, and give them some time, I can pull a joke on Muhammed, and they won't hate me, but join in in it."

I am Muslim, try this on me and we will see how it works (provided you give me you home address).

I do not care about your respect, though it is part of my religion to be nice to you until you did not cross the boundaries. I am advised to be nice to you if you verbally abuse me personally, or put trash in my backyard (example from the life of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'laihi wa sallam. Offending the Prophet is beyond those boundaries.

I do what I do, meaning defending the honor of the Prophet by hand, by tongue or in my heart, whatever is feasible, because that is part of religion, not because I want to earn your respect or any kind of consideration for your existence.

Re:You don't say

[mindmaster064]

It's not ethnic cleansing if they're trying to kill you, it's called self-defense! Stop giving these retards a home, and a forum. Shut 'em down. They can believe whatever they want until they start shaking their fists at folks.If we dropped one bomb every time one of these guys started threatening people I'm sure it'd stop really fast. They are doing it because >we are allowing it. You don't want to get taken out? Don't stand with the fist shaker. It's not about religion it's about their constant threats and terror campaigns.

Not convinced it's not a joke or hoax

[namalc]

After watching the episode, I'm not convinced it's not a joke or hoax.

For one thing, "beeping" offensive material is a pretty old way of removing offensive material (I think it comes from the old days of "beeping" out offensive material in live broadcasts). Today, you'd imagine the would have blanked the audio rather than beeping it. Using beeps just seems a little rigged.

Second, if you watch the closed captions, the beeped audio shows as "[BEEP]". This also seems planned to me.

Finally, if the show was so offensive that Comedy Central felt it had to beep nearly a minute of speeches at the end, I am surprised they just didn't pull the show.

Nooo, the censored version is great!

[UnFaNa]

It makes me sad to think that the beeped-out version is considered something to be angry about. I thought the beeps were great and actually made this "masterpiece" complete - if they are "real", even better, that gives it a special touch. I was laughing my ass of when I watched the conclusion in the end: "I learned something today *beeeeeeeee*". And I'm sure, I'm not the only one. Can't imagine whatever has been in place of the beeps would have been more fitting or funny. I know I didn't stop laughing before the first long beeping sound ended and I started again, when Jesus and Santa started "beeping". And it's just so extraordinarily ironic, we'll never know what we should have "learned" from those incidents due to the censorship (And that "Jesus" isn't allowed to talk about you-know-what - this theme has already be in the episode before). Is there anything more useful to learn than those circumstances in themselves? *g*

It's just so incredibly fitting. Wow. Maybe Parken & Stone are just angry because they didn't have the idea themselves or decided against it, while Comedy Central managed to do it by accident? Best episode ever ;). Whatever person did the censoring deserves a medal, even though I'm not entirely sure if for doing a great job by censoring the episode without ruining it or just for being too ignorant to look at his work again afterwards and think: "wait, that just made it even funnier maybe I should start over".

Re:You don't say

[One Monkey]

Or... as Rollins put it: "If life gives you lemons say: LEMONS!? Great! I LOOOOOOVE lemons! What else ya got!?"

When...

[warGod3]

...does their contract expire? Anyone want to start taking bets when they will head to Fox?

Re:You don't say

[flyneye]

You're right, the number of Islamic fundamentalist extremists is definitely a higher ratio to the number of Klan knotheads out there.
      So somewhere in your self absorbed righteousness I'm guessing you got the point.
      Due to the FAILURE of Islam to do anything about it, I am anti-Islam. Maybe someday when it's fermented long enough, as Islam has, people will recognize Scientology for it's rich and complicated traditions. I doubt though that mindless "political correctness" will follow mankinds evolution very much longer, so maybe not.

is that you anonymous?

[circletimessquare]

yes sir, sir!

it's an honor sir!

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[anarche]

and I am sure Jewish and Hindu would be ignored.

Sorry, who?

This is nothing more than the good old policies of liberal lore where certain races are predisposed to violence, theft, or just need help getting an education because they don't have the ability to do good on their own.

um. how are these liberal policies? I would have thought that the assumption that

...certain races are predisposed to violence, theft, or just need help getting an education...

smacks of the kind of racism conservatives are generally associated with.

Re:You don't say

[mapkinase]

There is not a one problem with that plan, but many.

1. It has been tried before with much failure: Islam is the fastest growing religion and attacks only strengthen the resolve of the believers.

2. You are afraid to die, I am not. Your life ends with your death, that's why you will be clinging to it sacrificing all that you claim is important to you: your freedoms and other materialistic bullshit. I on the contrary could not care less about my freedoms and other materialistic bullshit. Do you really think the one with more powerful weapons win?

Re:You don't say

[Dog-Cow]

No it's not. The Rabbis claimed thousands of years ago that non-Jews are not able to truly understand Torah. Your post lends credence to this idea.

amen!

[Weezul]

You'll only encourage them by censoring shit. A constructive response to islamic protects against depicting Mohammed would be depicting Mohammed eating pig feces. :)

Dan Savage declared it everybody draw mohammed day

Re:You don't say

[Dog-Cow]

You know almost nothing. You take quotes out of context and you take them literally. At no time in history has the entirety of Torah been taken literally in matters of law. It has always been interpreted.

The Torah never punishes victims. Rape is not punished by death for either party.

The Torah never claims that there will be some point in the future when no non-Jews exist, though other scriptures indicate that non-Jews will recognize the supremacy of God and his chosen people. It is never said that they will cease to exist.

Re:You don't say

[sznupi]

Wasn't Japan paying full costs of occupation? (+ the reparations; certainly was the case with Germany, I would be surprised it it wasn't the case with Japan)

And afterwards you get free forward bases...

they are christians

[Weezul]

Yes, they follow the old testament more than the new testament, true. But they're still christians, their actions reflect upon christianity, etc.

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[sponga]

Not to nit pick but you gotta look at the numbers also, for every one of your examples there are about 5,000 for the Muslims.

You guys are realist, I am sure somebody could always do a 'per capita' count on the extremist there and compare it to extremist Christians.
The parrot response around here when talking about Muslim extremist always seems to be the Oklahoma City Bombing, come on really. I don't know if that is a sad statistic or that he was more efficient at killing more people in Oklahoma City Bombing than any other Muslim attack till 9/11.
Also the silence by their majority doesn't help their cause also, it only creates a boiling environment of non stop hate and lies to gain popularity with the population.

Re:You don't say

[Lillebo]

Where is it written that innocent television broadcasters need to put their lives on the line to adhere to your ideals?

"Innocent"? The very reason South Park has become successful is because of its controversial and offensive nature. By censoring the show they're betraying their audience.

Re:You don't say

[zerospeaks]

He misspells parody, and claims the disciples carried swords. And he get's modded insightful. Slashdot has gone downhill

Re:You don't say

[sznupi]

Allies wanted to starve Germany to death for a few years after the war (look up JCS 1067). German POWs were quickly reclassified after the war to fall outside the conventions. Their industrial and intellectual base was for the taking. Food aid offered by few neighbouring countries - forbidden. Steps which could improve the economy - forbidden. Yes, that changed after a few years to prevent whole Germany from falling into Soviet Block. But even the total aid received (which for Germany was mostly a loan, pretty small in comparison to what, say, UK was getting - which didn't help the latter from falling into economic depression) was dwarfed by annual payments for occupation (yes, Germany had to pay for its occupation) and war reparations.

Yup, a success story, even greater than you thought.

Still, I think you're greatly underestimating Japan, however nice it is to think that they just "stole" the technology from us; and Germany depends greatly on their car industry too, you know...

(Japan never had serious military?! O_o )

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[drinkypoo]

You can't just go get a ryder truck and load it up with a fertilizer bomb. The feds figured that out.

But you COULD fill a container with explosives and run it up into a harbor, then blow it up while it's in customs, and cripple a port. There's a ton of such [relatively] low-tech attacks which could be pulled off. Using portable plasma cutters or even just cutting torches (they call small acetylene tanks "burglar bottles" for a reason) you could drop critical high-tension lines and have big portions of the country out of power for days to weeks. The truth is that there are very few terrorists.

Before everything went to hell completely, Mexico used to police it's borders, and as an overwhelming christian country, they didn't particularly like the arabs either.

Mexico has a different kind of border policing going on now; it's become an even more incredibly dangerous place than it always has been. I can't help but think this is by design, but it's not intended to keep anyone out of the USA, but to keep Americans in as the economy goes to shit. The US has been shitting directly on Mexico for about as long as it's been a single entity and before that, others were doing it.

Comedy Central added the bleeps

[mcgrew]

That's why I rarely watch Comedy Central, and avoid funny movies on that channel like the plague. They always censor heavily, and usually what's cut is the funniest part of a movie.

They're not the only offenders, or even the worst. I refuse to watch any movie rated more than G on TV; I'll rent the DVD instead and the morons and their advertisers can go to hell. Show it or don't, but damn it DON'T CENSOR!!

Re:They won't back down to whacko Christian threat

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Yes, but there haven't been any open threats or thinly-veiled "warnings" either. There also isn't a recent precedent of non-believers being threatened and/or murdered over such depictions either. Bottom line, religious fundamentalists are assholes in general, but only one particular religion's fundamentalists have gone this far in recent memory.

Re:You don't say

[zerospeaks]

"what could Stan and Kyle possibly been saying that was so offensive?"

Ya know what... I learned something today, It's ok for us to make fun of a religion that gives you death threats because chances are they will attack and kill the producers and studio executives first who live at ______ . "yeah" Something like that maybe.

Re:You don't say

[descubes]

It does not matter AT ALL, which “religion” it is.

What does matter is whether the founder of the religion said "love your enemies" or "kill your enemies"...

Re:Mod Parent UP

[AlamedaStone]

>.>

.

None of them is as stupid as all of them.

What I told them

[drinkypoo]

"I'm not buying anything with your logo on it until you sort this out." Why would they care if you think they're pussies? Why would they care if they're producing mediocre content? All they care about is filthy, filthy mammon.

Re:You don't say

[PincushionMan]

Even the disciples carried swords, you dimwit. With that said...

Source please. In the story I remember, one of the disciples stole a soldier's sword and chopped off his ear. I suppose he was going for the head/neck area, but whatever. I'm betting the soldier was caught off guard [heh], because Jesus (Yeshwa?) was always preaching peace, so he wasn't expecting any of his disciples to go ballistic.

Re:You don't say

[sznupi]

Hm, though lately I seem to notice at your place quite a few rulers and hope-to-be ones which do think they act from unction of divine authority...

Re:You don't say

[sznupi]

Most (all?) religious groups turn against anyone who is perceived not to be on their side, circumstances permitting.

completely wrong

[circletimessquare]

you say "entire media organisations and even political parties" commit the fallacy of ascribing to all of islam the crimes of a few kooks. really?

"entire media organization and even political parties"

why is this any different than citing "entire religions and even nationalities"?

it's the same logical error: you've ascribed to huge diverse groups the opinion of a tiny fringe. you're part of the problem. you're a blind partisan: you've stopped seeing issues and you have begun to attack people in groups. you're guilty of prejudice, of labeling and then attacking. you're as bad as the problem you describe

and with that, you've lost all credibility, because you see a monolithic block where there is only a fringe few acting badly, which is doubly a vile error you've made because it is the exact same crime you accuse someone else of

complete hypocrisy. you wind up using language and thought processes that you condemn. in pretty much the same sentence. you are 100% guilty of the same heinous error in thought you are trying to expose: stereotyping

I call shenanigans!

[tomcode]

Unless they release the unedited version, I say this is BS. If the original version had no big black "censored" block, then how would the joke have worked when Tom Cruise got the goo and his own censored block? Can anyone explain how that joke would have made sense without a censored block?

Matt and Trey have a history of subversive comedy. When Bush was president, they said in an interview that it wasn't radical to oppose Bush, but saying "Bush is awesome" is hard-core. Come on, they love this stuff.

I don't believe this any more than I believe the credits of "John Doe" were because they were afraid of being sued by Scientology.

I can see them laughing at all the over-reaction (f---ing Muslims!) here and elsewhere. Andy Kaufman would be proud.

On a side note, the problem is not Muslims, the problem is a--holes who issue death threats and do other nasty things. A lesser problem is people who think the problem is Muslims.

Re:You don't say

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

BILL HICKS IS A FUCKING GOD.

Right up there with Carlin, Pryor, Mooney, and Screaming Sammy :)

Jon Stewart said it best....

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/jon-stewart-stands-up-for_n_549178.html

Re:You don't say

[FakeSquirrel]

Where is it written that innocent television broadcasters need to put their lives on the line to adhere to your ideals?

Nowhere. But this cowardice should be called out because self censorship is the beginning of the end for free speech. Americans should feel compelled to stand up for the values of their society and should be shamed when they fail to do so.

I also find your use of the term innocent interesting. Innocent of what, exactly?

Re:You don't say

[Nytehauq]

It's easy to bash on Comedy Central when you aren't the one in danger.

Where is it written that innocent television broadcasters need to put their lives on the line to adhere to your ideals?

If you consider freedom of speech to be just "someone's ideal" and something that shouldn't be fought for when there is risk involved... there are some recent Daily Show episodes that express my contempt for your fatuousness and you should watch them posthaste.

Re:You don't say

[tmosley]

I never heard of a "gun-toting" American killing anyone over a depiction of Jesus. Hell, even the guys who made the Mary and Jesus statue out of cow dung got away just fine with nothing more than a few protesters.

America is polite, largely because our population is armed.

Fundamentalists are Fundamentalists

[wonkavader]

Fundamentalists are people who base their religion on an unmovable foundation: Generally this means a text which they believe to be 100% true.

So Christian fundamentalists believe that the bible is the word of God and thus 100% true (generally that bible is the KJB, since translations have essentially made Christian fundamentalism impossible without creating a fundamental text by fiat) are fundamentalists. Those that don't aren't. Those that say they are that don't believe some text is completely true are wrong about what they are. Those that do believe the text is 100% true but say "I'm not a fundamentalist" are deluding themselves.

If he says he's a fundamentalist, and he knows what that word means, then he's a fundamentalist. It doesn't have to mean a baby-killer. There are plenty of very nice fundamentalists in the world. (I find their take on reality a little annoying, but virtually all the fundies I know are very nice people who wouldn't dream of blowing anyone up.)

Fundies are deranged, yes, but we all are in some ways. Very, very few of them are dangerous.

The weird thing about being a fundie is that it seems like all religious texts contradict themselves any number of times (especially if you assume any particular 10 words means 100 words, and that the post-hoc analysis which expands the short text must be completely true) and yet, it must ALL be true, so they wind up having to come up with little intellectual dances to make the whole thing consistent.

Re:Fundamentalists are Fundamentalists

[AlamedaStone]

It doesn't have to mean a baby-killer. There are plenty of very nice fundamentalists in the world.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment. I certainly acknowledge that all fundies aren't baby-killers of course; however Christian fundamentalists are actively harmful to any meaningful discussion in the US surrounding issues such as education, contraception, church/state separation, sexuality, and probably a host of others which escape me at the moment.

They may be very "nice" people, but that doesn't absolve them of being dangerous. Killing babies and blowing up buildings are the least insidious forms of harm.

Re:Fundamentalists are Fundamentalists

[wonkavader]

"however Christian fundamentalists are actively harmful to any meaningful discussion in the US surrounding issues such as education, contraception, church/state separation, sexuality, and probably a host of others which escape me at the moment."

Of course. But you have to add "Some" to the beginning of that sentence. Fundies are all around you. They're in places you don't expect. Fundies in some churches are politically active and try to undermine some VERY sensible ideas. In other churches, and I have real experience with this, they vote for reasonable things and have a genuinely intelligent world-view.

"They may be very "nice" people, but that doesn't absolve them of being dangerous."

Again, some fundamentalists are dangerous, but but not all fundamentalists are dangerous. The problem is not fundamentalism, it's stupidity and sheep-like behavior. Yes, these things are correlated, but they are not the same thing. Furthermore, you can get stupidity and sheep-like behavior in people who are not fundamentalists.

Aiming at fundamentalism and not education and culture is treating the cough, not the lung infection. It allows us to ignore our own stupidity and sheep-like behavior, and while it feels good, doesn't solve the problem.

Re:Fundamentalists are Fundamentalists

[yurtinus]

I thought fundies were underwear designed to fit two people in them at the same time...

I need to start visiting some different websites.

Re:Fundamentalists are Fundamentalists

[idontgno]

As far as I can tell, the only danger we pose is that we disagree, civilly, with you.

Or are you falling prey to the "I'm right, and if you disagree you should shut up" fallacy you accuse others?

BTW, "Fundamentalist" is not actually a code-word for "turned his brain off long ago". And it's no more accurate a stereotyping label as "Jew", "Liberal", or "Redneck".

For the record, I and many other fundamentalists assert that separation of church and state is critical. We have no business dictating religious conviction or practice, including the complete absence thereof, and neither does anyone else.

Re:Fundamentalists are Fundamentalists

[jahudabudy]

however Christian fundamentalists are actively harmful to any meaningful discussion in the US surrounding issues such as education, contraception, church/state separation, sexuality, and probably a host of others which escape me at the moment. They may be very "nice" people, but that doesn't absolve them of being dangerous. Killing babies and blowing up buildings are the least insidious forms of harm.

I'm sorry, are you saying that these people are harmful and dangerous because they disagree with you on various policy issues? And have the gall to actively participate in our democratic process to try and implement policies that they believe are best for our society? I suspect you would cite it as proof of their "lunacy" if they accused you of "being dangerous b/c you are actively trying to undermine society's values by, i.e. legalizing gay marriage". And yet your rhetoric sounds pretty much the same to me.

Re:Fundamentalists are Fundamentalists

[AlamedaStone]

But you have to add "Some" to the beginning of that sentence. Fundies are all around you. They're in places you don't expect.

As with any generalization, my remarks could never apply to every member of a community. I tend to assume people understand that, as a basic truth, but I wanted to state it explicitly here. Sorry for the confusion.

In other churches, and I have real experience with this, they vote for reasonable things and have a genuinely intelligent world-view.

I can only speak for my own experience, although I concede that my exposure to fundamentalism is purely through those outspoken enough to have their voices heard. If there is an individual who holds fundamentalist beliefs but does not try to impose those beliefs on others, I have no quarrel. My experience indicates there are vastly fewer of this type of fundamentalist.

Aiming at fundamentalism and not education and culture is treating the cough, not the lung infection.

This is certainly true, but we still get lozenges or anaesthetic for our throats as part of treatment. There is a growing culture of ignorance perpetuated largely by (what appears to be) christian fundamentalist populations. It isn't treating one or the other, they are the same.

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks.

Re:Fundamentalists are Fundamentalists

[AlamedaStone]

I'm sorry, are you saying that these people are harmful and dangerous because they disagree with you on various policy issues? And have the gall to actively participate in our democratic process to try and implement policies that they believe are best for our society?

No, I'm saying that people are harmful or dangerous when they try to force others, through legislation, to engage in practices that are harmful to the advancement of the education and health of our citizens. I'm not going to waste time detailing them, as I have responded elsewhere with my views.

I suspect you would cite it as proof of their "lunacy" if they accused you of "being dangerous b/c you are actively trying to undermine society's values by, i.e. legalizing gay marriage". And yet your rhetoric sounds pretty much the same to me.

It may sound the same to you, but you are mistaken.

Since you bring it up, gay marriage is an excellent example. It has zero effect on non-gay families. It seems to make some people feel their personal commitments are harmed by someone else's, but that is purely a self-imposed harm.

Refusing to acknowledge two people's commitment to each other on moral grounds, when marriage can be entered into by any man and woman at a whim and with zero intent of commitment, is plainly a logical fallacy. This isn't a subjective topic.

What is the price of free speech?

[jbohumil]

Trey and Matt could move the show to HBO, that will show Comedy Central. If that doesn't work, hell they could probably move it to the Playboy Channel and people would sign up. If we can pay for naked people maybe if we pay enough someday we can hear words and watch cartoons without censorship.

fox? are you sure?

[feepcreature]

Why would they head to Fox when their contract expires? Don't Fox have that rule about cancelling shows if they are any good?

Re:fox? are you sure?

[RaceProUK]

They cancelled Family Guy. Twice. Then brought it back because enough people bought it on DVD.

Re:You don't say

[martyros]

When one is presented with contradictory instructions, one chooses the instruction that fits what one wants to do.

Not if one thinks that there is a real, just God, who is going to hold you accountable at the end of your life for what you've done, and are earnestly trying to find out what He thinks.

Re:You don't say

[discord5]

Where is it written that innocent television broadcasters need to put their lives on the line to adhere to your ideals?

Dear US,

We are very upset with this "freedom of speech" thing you have. If you do not cancel so called "freedom of speech" we will blow up all of your fast food restaurants.

Kind regards,
Religious Nut #523

P.S.: We would also be very pleased if you could find it in your heart to convert to our religion, as it will give us a +2 bonus to diplomatic relations and avoid the possibility of war.

Re:You don't say

[martyros]

but I think (could be wrong) a lot of the stuff in the new testament was ment to invalidate the old stuff, like stoning.

You have to separate the stuff in the Old Testament was about running a government from the rules meant for personal conduct. Yes, the death penalty was often imposed for many offenses (including murder, adultery, being a lazy bum and mooching off your parents after they've tried to get you go get a real job, collecting wood on Saturday after you'd been told not to). But those were laws about what the government should do, not individual citizens. Many governments still impose the death penalty for some forms of murder. Death for a lot of the other ones seems pretty extreme to us now, but in part that's a cultural difference. Most governments at the time had similarly harsh punishments.

There's no indication in the Old Testament that the laws regarding government were meant to last forever, or that any country other than ancient Israel was meant to live under them. There was a period of history where large numbers of Jews had been forcibly removed from Israel, and the Old Testament tells them specifically to keep following the religious customs, but otherwise follow the law of the land they were in and "seek its good". Most of the New Testament Christians were living under Roman rule outside of Israel, and were told to respect the government of whatever country they were in.

As has been said elsewhere, Islam has no provision for separation of Church and State.

Re:You don't say

[Bigjeff5]

It's not indiscriminate, it's very discriminate. It's just the discriminating criteria is "infidel", and the definition of "infidel" is "non-believer".

They know exactly who they are supposed to kill: everyone who doesn't believe like they do.

Scholars who study the Koran say it is absolutely loaded with contradictions - later writings frequently take the exact opposite position of earlier writings. The way Muslims deal with this is by giving the later writings of Muhammad precedence over the earlier writings. So if an early writing says "Be kind to all people" and a later writing says "Kill all infidels", the later writing wins.

From what I've been told, "Kill all infidels" was in Muhammad's last set of scriptures, which means they take precedence over everything that came before. The only way to be a good Muslim and not follow this directive is to pretend that these scriptures don't exist, which isn't exactly being a good Muslim.

Basically, the non-violent Muslims are simply bad Muslims.

This is the exact opposite situation with Christianity, where God promises to bring the violence, the believers are to turn the other cheek. There are plenty of people who ignore this, but that just makes them bad Christians. As far as Buddhism goes, I don't think you're allowed to even pretend to be Buddhist if you are violent.

Petty insults?

[chrb]

You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?/You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?

Maybe that is what you want it to mean. The reality is that Christian theologians have argued for a long time about the exact meaning of the phrase "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.". See Wikipedia : Turn the other cheeck

Note the rest of the quote: "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.". That philosophy is about as far from the American firearm lobby and their ideals of "protecting your property with lethal force" as it is possible to be.

Best Post of the Week

[bigredradio]

This was informative, well thought out, and interesting. You must be new here.

Re:You don't say

[Millennium]

The Declaration of Independence was, at best, a mission statement. It's a fine statement, too, but it is not law. That has implications.

Off with their heads!!!

[bigredradio]

The guy in the bear suit wasn't even Muhammed. As became clear in episode 201, it was fucking Santa Claus.

They have gone too far. Depicting our beloved Santa Claus in a bear suit! We will hunt you down Mr Parker and Mr Stone. You will experience our wrath!

Re:You don't say

[CannonballHead]

And "Christian" means "little Christ." If a "Christian" goes around killing people, insulting people, bullying people, etc, he is in no way a "little Christ." The two positions are mutually exclusive....

Re:You don't say

[Bigjeff5]

Similar to the way Muhammad's later writings supersede his earlier writings, the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. There are a lot of good lessons in it, so it is still used, but all the behavioral guidelines are found in the New Testament. It basically took the core of the old laws and made them significantly stricter. For example, in the Old Testament it was a sin to murder. Under the New Testament it's a sin to even think about murder. Under the Old Testament, the law was tit for tat - you slap me I slap you back. Under the New Testament the law is you slap me, I present my other cheek for you to slap also.

The stonings were all punishments for violating the law. You may not like the laws, and that's fine, but it was far from telling all Christians to kill all non-believers, yet that is exactly what Muhammad told Muslims to do.

There is a big difference between the two religions, and while there has been plenty of violence hidden under the guise of Christianity, there has been constant and consistent violence from Islam.

You remember the Crusades that everyone likes to beat Christians up for? Do you remember what those were about? The Crusades happened because Muslims were slaughtering Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem. The eventually did stop, just before the Crusades started, but that was because they realized the pilgrims were their cash cow, not for any realization that they weren't properly following the teachings of Muhammad. It was too little, too late, you might say.

Violence due to the teachings of Islam has been a serious problem for over a thousand years, the stuff we see today is nothing new. Christians throughout history can't be held up as a shining example for the rest of the world, but to say Islam is a non-violent religion you have to completely ignore the last thousand years and the teachings of Islam that spurred them on. It's disingenuous at best.

Damn redirect!

[RaceProUK]

Is there a version of this link (http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3878) that doesn't redirect UK viewers to the UK website, where the article isn't visible?

Re:Damn redirect!

[RockDoctor]

http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/fans/blog/

Where the (current) top entry starts
"27/4/2010
Michael Lloyd, Production Assistant:
Dear South Park Fans,
Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!
Blee-b-b-b-bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.
Bleep!
Hope you join us tomorrow night for the latest episode "Crippled Summer," where Jimmy suits up and prepares to shred in the annual surfing contest!"
and then links on to (currently) 26 not very much more informative comments.

I assume that Comedy Central (whoever they are?) have (/are about to) broadcast an episode with some of the Mohammed-fucking swearing f*cking well f*cking ble*ped the f*cking f*ck out tae f*ck. Which might or might not make it funny enough to bother watching. If it's on at work.
Personally, South Park has never particularly lit my fire. Has it really been 13 episodes now? Or even series? and I should care who killed Kennedy?

Meanwhile, SlashDot sez :
"Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there. "

Oh, the Vogonity!

Re:You don't say

[Bigjeff5]

I'm sorry, I've yet to find the part in the Old Testament that says if I blow myself up on a train, I'll get 40 virgins to myself in heaven.

In the Bible, except for a few very specific instructions (generally involving attacking another nation), stoning occurs because of someone breaking the law. Period. You might not like the laws, but that's what it is: punishments internal to the Israelite nation. In the Koran, there are very specific instructions too, they just run along the lines of "kill all infidels".

Re:You don't say

[superstick58]

They didn't NEED to sensor all that (the end speech, the word muhammed, etc). They censored it as part of the humor. They said, we can't show this because of fundamentalist muslim threats so let's censor it in such a way as we are satirizing our own censorship! If the creators originally created the show this way, it would be a funny and clever irony, but because comedy central made the choice, it is now heresy to the free speech crowd.

Re:You don't say

[Bigjeff5]

You are correct, Jesus advocated non-retaliation. His basic position on everything regarding punishment (of others) was "God will deal with it, you don't need to." As for the law, Jesus didn't invalidate it, as others have said, he made it much stricter - stating that even the thought of breaking any of the 10 commandments was a sin. The end result is that all Christians should be as pacifist as Buddhists are. There is no excuse not to be.

In other words, any time you hear a "Christian" talking about acts of extreme violence, at the very least he is a very, very bad Christian and doesn't know much at all about the Bible.

Re:If that's how they respond...

[Bigjeff5]

Is she back up here? I had no idea...

Re:You don't say

[Bigjeff5]

The “threat” from Muslim extremists is ridiculously low. Negligible even.

(ftfy)

The threat to you is low, the threat to CC and Matt and Trey is very, very high. That's what the scores of death threats they've been getting are all about.

Generally when someone sends you a death threat, the threat level goes way up from negligible. When a hundred people threaten you, you hire a security detail, because it's entirely possible that someone will try.

CC just pussed out is all, Matt and Trey were ready to take on all comers.

Re:You don't say

[Altus]

Nobody is saying we should throw the execs in jail for not showing the episode, no one is saying they broke the laws of the land.

The implication is that this is their moral obligation, not a legal one. That its their duty, both moral and patriotic to not bow down to threats of violence from religious extremists (or any extremest really).

You can disagree with that if you want, but nobody is claiming that they broke any laws.

pessimists are never happily surprised

[circletimessquare]

if you prepare for the worst, you can't prepare for the best. when you prepare for the worst, that's exactly what you get

and yes: optimists ARE disappointed, most of them. a few succeed. no pessimists succeed

so basically you are asking me to choose between near certainty of failure, and certainty of failure. obviously, to try and lose is far better a life experience than openly choosing to lose and doing exactly that

the world belongs to the optimists. pessimists, this is a merely psychologogical solace for those who freely and openly choose not to matter in this world. fucking pathetic

Re:pessimists are never happily surprised

[mcgrew]

if you prepare for the worst, you can't prepare for the best.

Usually the best needs no preparation, but if it needs preparing for there's nothing keeping you from planning for both.

so basically you are asking me to choose between near certainty of failure, and certainty of failure.

No, the possibility of failure, not the certainty.

obviously, to try and lose is far better a life experience than openly choosing to lose and doing exactly that

Even the pessimist doesn't TRY to lose; he just dosn't believe he'll succeed. There have been times I've been pessimistic and succeeded, and optimistic and failed. To get your hopes too high is setting yourself up for a fall.

The optimist sees the glass half full, the pessimist sees it half empty, the realist asks "is it enough?"

Re:You don't say

[Bigjeff5]

Again, it seemed like this was a joke, poking fun at the whole censorship thing.

It wasn't, hence the reason Matt and Trey, the creators of SouthPark, are pissed at CC for censoring it. RTFA man, or even RTFS. The speech was about intimidation and fear, which makes censoring it out of fear due to intimidation incredibly ironic.

Re:You don't say

[Neoprofin]

Even the Dahli Lama says that people have a right to defend themselves.

Re:You don't say

[DavidTC]

You do realize that part in the bible about "turning cheeks" had to do with petty insults, right?

Uh, no, it had to do with assault.

Someone hits you in one side of the face, you turn so they can hit you in the other side, also.

Disagree all you want, but it wasn't about insults.

ok, here's some convincing:

[circletimessquare]

99% chance of failure is better than 100% chance of failure

that's why you should always try, no matter how bleak the circumstances

pessimism is guaranteed loserville. optimism is mostly loserville. and psychologically, you're simply a happier nicer person to be around if you tried, and lost, rather than never tried at all: who wants to be around such a wormy slavelike self-powerless mind?

Re:You don't say

[Neoprofin]

What is it if I said I owned guns and like most an decent responsible person I don't want to point any of them at anyone unless I absolutely have to?

Congrats though, you're a mid-90s Clinton AWB stereotype with access to a keyboard. You've got the unneeded quotes, the inflammatory language, the massive strawman; you should sit down and write a guide on Trolling for Dummies.

Re:You don't say

[Neoprofin]

Matt and Trey seemed pretty willing to put it on the line for their ideals and considering that the actual threats were against them and not Comedy Central I don't think you line of logic really works.

Re:You don't say

[DavidTC]

In short, just as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who understand what it is they are reading and those who are fucktard, sock puppets void of any rational thought or ability to critically think for themselves.

Interestingly, I read an article the other day that specifically said the problem is converts. They're the one without rational thought.

People who grow up in a religion, and grow up with other people in that religion, have the ability to hold two opinions at once. Aka, they believe the religion is true, but they don't really worry about every aspect of it, they tend to just ignore people violating the rules, etc. Sometimes this turns into actual willful blindness where entire societies conspire to ignore things.

Sometimes this blindness will 'lag behind' social norms, so you'll get old ladies frowning and gossiping in a rapidly changing society, but, in general, people who grew up in a religion interpret their religion to fit the world they live in, and just totally ignore everything else.

Whereas, OTOH, converts go crazy overboard, actually following every rule and whatnot. Rules that everyone else long decided were...you know...sorta guidelines.

Also, this is contagious. You get a few new converts, and they can sway people who've been in that religion all their life into radicalism. Without converts, radicalization is way down. With them, it can even extend to others.

Before anyone thinks the first is 'good thing' and the second a 'bad thing', this applies as much to, for example, selling all your worldly possession to help the poor as it does to stoning adulterers.

Re:You don't say

[I'm not really here]

I would just like to say (since I have some very nice Muslim friends) that you might need to tone this down a bit... Some Muslims decide to be irrational and threaten death at the mere mention of Muhammad by an 'infidel'. Most are just really nice people trying to live a good life while remaining faithful to God.

Re:You don't say

[I'm not really here]

Except the whole part of Jesus (the entire crux of the faith) explicitly outlined how one should sum up all the laws and the prophets:

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

-- Matthew 20:35-40

So, if any action you are about to take violates either of the first or second law, then you're not following the intention of the law.

Re:You don't say

[Monkeedude1212]

Matt and Trey AND the entire Comedy Central Organization were threatened. It was not just those two.

Re:You don't say

[Neoprofin]

You obviously haven't actually read the RevolutionIslam site, or you wouldn't say that since the only mention of Comedy Central is that you can contact them as an intermediary to Trey and Matt who are mentioned repeatedly by name both on the site and in the videos. They are the ones likened to Theo Van Gogh and the video explains why THEY will end up like him.

I know the site is down right now and this requires you to use the Google Cache, but it only takes a second to be correct.

Re:You don't say

[Chardish]

Coming from a Catholic tradition, we don't believe that all of the Bible is literal truth, but rather all of it is spiritual truth. Of course there are contradictions and inaccuracies - it's a compendium of books written by dozens of authors over the course of centuries. The goal in reading it is not to merely read the words - it's to seek a deeper spiritual truth through meditation and prayer.

I won't speak for other spiritual texts, but you can't read the Bible in the same way as you do a textbook.

bullshit

[circletimessquare]

success is a matter of hard work and luck

you can work hard, and still not succeed due to bad luck, but how do you succeed f you don't work hard? how do you work hard if you don't believe you will succeed? where't he motivation?

i would say that i suppose a successful pessimist is someone who just had good luck (since he certainly wouldn't have worked hard), but even then, most pessimists wouldn't even buy that lottery ticket

no: life is mostly made up of your own self-fulfilling philosophy. and if you are pessimistic, of your life, you reap exactly what you sow. pessimism is merely the ideology and psychological solace of the slave

Re:bullshit

[mcgrew]

Optimism and pessimism are one's outlook on luck only. Obviously you're not going to undertake anything you don't think you'll succeed at, but you should have some understanding of your own talents.

Usually you're neither !00% optimistic or 100% pessimistic about any undertaking. I was dubious about a certain relationship I recently pursued, but went ahead anyway despite advice my own misgivings and friends' advice. Pessimism saved me a lot of pain. If I'd been too optimistic, I'd still be chasing rainbows (and I WAS too optimistic).

What I thought was the answer to prayers was Satan's snare.

Re: Epic

[LanMan04]

I think we need Mohammad to be depicted in your low budget Phillipino/NYC Horror Movie.

That's apparently been in production for, oh, 6 years or so. :)

Re:You don't say

[HoppQ]

Muhammed: (((:~{> .

Re:You don't say

[GooberToo]

Interestingly, I read an article the other day that specifically said the problem is converts. They're the one without rational thought.

I don't buy that for a second. They may be a factor, but I don't believe they are the root cause.

Almost without exception radicalization of ideologies stem from poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, or puppeteering. In the case of the Islamic world, all factors are rampant.

The largest printer of the Koran in the world is Saudi. And in their version, they include both anti-Western bigotry, radicalized views, and the call-to-arms via modern weaponry. All this despite they actually represent the smallest sect in Islam. In turn these Korans are all provided to some of the most impoverished and ignorant countries in the world.

In short, there is not need for converts when you're born indoctrinated with malice, ignorance, and corruption of your own religion.

Made far, far worse, in the case of Muslims, is the fact that they are all learning an incorrect translation of the Koran - where it turns out your reward in the afterlife is grapes rather than virgins. The corrected translation also refines what it is to be a Muslim and oddly enough, the fifth verse in every stance suddenly makes perfect sense. Go figure.

Basically, Muslims in the Middle East are at a huge disadvantage to resist radicalization.

I'm not religous but...

[thetoadwarrior]

If they're going to do this for Islam then I expect the same treatment for Christians, Scientologists, etc. Muslims are not special in anyway. They are equal. That means they get all the good parts of life in America and all the bad bits too.

Re:No. Christians kill too. It's rare for Muslims.

[BobMcD]

We still have Christian extremists who burn crosses to scare people they don't like.

Are you suggesting that the KKK is some sort of devout Christian order? Don't they have a history of bombing Christian churches? This doesn't seem to make much sense.

Anyway, the point is that some Christians kill too, and most Muslims don't.

This used to be the case in the middle ages, but I don't think it stands up as a 'fact' today. Christians will kill you if you're an abortion doctor, but not because of what you believe, but because of the perceived threat to unborn children. It really isn't the same thing at all, I don't think. They're not trying to convince people to believe as they do through violence, they're merely trying to preempt what they see as killing of innocents. (For the record I disagree with their viewpoint, but it isn't precisely a religious point of view as it is an exigent one.)

Maybe you have other recent examples, though?

The rest of your post is fine.

Re:You don't say

[BobMcD]

Ah, but what if one wants to understand clearly the instructions as they are written?

This position is like saying that the average person is Amish. Things can and do change for most people, though some will be relative adherent to old ways.

Re:You don't say

[darkfire5252]

If they just follow the old testament then they aren't really Christains, but that would be some valid form of religion I guess.

Uhh.. perhaps you'd call those people 'Jews'?

Re:You don't say

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Don't forget Lenny Bruce and Doug Stanhope.

Re:You don't say

[Millennium]

Oh, believe me; I have no intention of defending what Comedy Central did. The most appropriate word I can think of to describe their actions is cowardice.

But when something isn't law applying and invoking it as if it were isn't wise. It does nothing to undermine the bookburners, and it makes our side look foolish: something we cannot afford.

Re:You don't say

[hairyfeet]

I notice you didn't even attempt to refute the numbers in the video. Why? Because you can't. If the majority in the west is only having one baby, if any, and the Islamists have 4 to 8, what happens in 50 years? You and I both know what will happen, and your PC head in the sand bullshit won't change the math. You will become a minority, with a hate filled evil religion that spews hatred for anyone or anything different will be the majority and thus be in power. Hide you head in the sand, it don't change the math.

As for what I would do? Simple-follow our laws or GTFO. This forming "Sharia Ghettos" shit needs to have a screeching halt put to it. If you want to live under Sharia, go to Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries that live under that crap, don't bring it here. No more burkas, or making your women live like indentured servants, no more selling your kids to pedo "marriages", you keep that shit at home or you don't come here, simple as that.

But you go right ahead and preach your "tolerance and love" bullshit, and see where that gets you. Because they do NOT love you, or even respect your right to exist. All of the freedoms you hold dear they hold in contempt, because it might allow someone to say something against the Hadith. But I don't need to convince you, you're gonna get to have a front row seat. France and Germany will probably be completely overrun in less than 20 years. We already have Islamists rioting in the streets and burning cars if someone dare to print a cartoon of the prophet there, what do you think will happen when they are the majority? Do you think THEY will preach tolerance and love? Bullshit, they will turn the country into another Sharia hellhole. Just you watch.

Re:You don't say

[Mr. Flibble]

I'm sorry, I've yet to find the part in the Old Testament that says if I blow myself up on a train, I'll get 40 virgins to myself in heaven.

In the Bible, except for a few very specific instructions (generally involving attacking another nation), stoning occurs because of someone breaking the law. Period. You might not like the laws, but that's what it is: punishments internal to the Israelite nation. In the Koran, there are very specific instructions too, they just run along the lines of "kill all infidels".

I am sorry, I don't see the part where *I* mentioned the blowing up of oneself on a train or the 40 virgins at all...

The old testament does say that you should kill witches, kill fortune tellers, kill homosexuals, kill non-belivers, kill an entire town if one of their flock worships another god, kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night, kill members of any other religion...

I could provide links to you for all those examples, but I won't. I leave it as an exercise for you to study on your own.

Re:No. Christians kill too. It's rare for Muslims.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Are you suggesting that the KKK is some sort of devout Christian order? Don't they have a history of bombing Christian churches? This doesn't seem to make much sense.

I admit that I haven't researched the KKK, but its "avowed purpose is to protect the rights and further the interests of White Americans of the Protestant faith by violence and intimidation." (Source: Wikipedia.) (emphasis added).

And I agree. It doesn't make much sense at all.

As to the distinction between convincing people to believe through violence and doing it for some other reason, ultimately I think people do it because they want to or they're trained to or they have an economic motivation, and then they justify it in one of several ways.

In this case, though, we're also not talking about a belief, but an action: depicting Mohammed. It's not murder, but it's still not merely holding a belief--it's acting on a belief.

Re:You don't say

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Doug is great... so is Joe Rogan. :)

Patrice Oneal is another great. and who could forget Louis C.K.?

There's a lot of really killer comics. Only a few though I'd put up with Carlin, Pryor and Hicks... I'd say Louis C.K. is earning that honor by the second.

Re:You don't say

[Skreems]

I notice you didn't even attempt to refute the numbers in the video. Why? Because you can't. If the majority in the west is only having one baby, if any, and the Islamists have 4 to 8, what happens in 50 years?

They said the exact same thing about China and India 30 years ago. You'll notice that as technology increased, though, the population started to level off on its own.

Simple-follow our laws or GTFO. This forming "Sharia Ghettos" shit needs to have a screeching halt put to it. If you want to live under Sharia, go to Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries that live under that crap, don't bring it here. No more burkas, or making your women live like indentured servants, no more selling your kids to pedo "marriages", you keep that shit at home or you don't come here, simple as that.

As far as I know, most of what you're ranting about is not against the law. And again I'd point out that there are already Gypsy clans in the US, as well as large areas of Utah and Wyoming where Mormon fringe groups do the same kind of arranged child marriage shit. None of this is new, and your fantasy that we've been free of this kind of thing in the past is completely false.

I'm not saying it's impossible. Hell, maybe Islam is a virus, and they're popping out babies just so they can come murder your kids in their sleep. Anything is possible, however improbable. What really gets me is, on one hand you claim that freedom and democracy is sacrosanct, and on the other you propose that we take away large swaths of freedom of behavior and association because you don't like them. You can't have it both ways. If you really support freedom and democracy, you don't get to legislate against the freedoms of minorities who scare you.

You can speak out against them, and I'll be the first to speak out against anyone who is against free expression, or supports violence. But right now, that happens to be both Muslim extremists and jackasses like you. Honestly, I'd rather I could ship all of you to Mongolia and have done with it, except because I actually support a free society I would never seriously suggest censoring your idiocy. Doesn't mean I won't make fun of it, though.

Re:You don't say

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Louis C.K is fucking great too. I've recently started listening to Dara O'Briain, the guy does some amazing comedy too. We were also forgetting about Bill Maher and John Stewart.

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

Coming from a Catholic tradition, we don't believe that all of the Bible is literal truth, but rather all of it is spiritual truth.

And what, exactly, is "spiritual truth"? Please explain the sense in which it's "spiritually true" that a woman should be stoned to death as a punishment for being a rape victim, under any circumstances, in any context.

The goal in reading it is not to merely read the words - it's to seek a deeper spiritual truth through meditation and prayer.

I wonder how much of that could be reached through meditation and prayer alone, without the book. In fact, if I were looking for something to meditate on or pray to, anything in the Bible would be low on that list.

I won't speak for other spiritual texts, but you can't read the Bible in the same way as you do a textbook.

Well, different sects behave differently. There are literalist Muslims and moderate Muslims. There are literalist Christians and moderate Christians.

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

Similar to the way Muhammad's later writings supersede his earlier writings, the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament.

Matt 5:17-18 seem to suggest otherwise.

There are a lot of good lessons in it, so it is still used,

And how do you know which lessons are good, and which ones are bad?

It basically took the core of the old laws and made them significantly stricter. For example, in the Old Testament it was a sin to murder. Under the New Testament it's a sin to even think about murder.

How do you know which parts are "the core" of those laws? The Old Testament rape laws seem to be nowhere in the New Testament, or at least, many Christians would like to think so.

Under the Old Testament, the law was tit for tat - you slap me I slap you back.

Mistranslation. IIRC, the correct translation is "No more than an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

The stonings were all punishments for violating the law. You may not like the laws, and that's fine...

Well, there is the particular law in which a woman may be stoned to death for being a rape victim. In other words, being a victim is illegal?

it was far from telling all Christians to kill all non-believers,

Well, not all Christians, but all Jews. Deuteronomy 13:13-17. And before you say "But that was the Old Testament", again, Matt 5:17-18.

yet that is exactly what Muhammad told Muslims to do.

Hey, if you can rationalize away what your holy book says, they can, too.

while there has been plenty of violence hidden under the guise of Christianity, there has been constant and consistent violence from Islam.

Seems like there's been pretty constant and consistent violence from Christians, also. Look up the Spanish Inquisition, for one -- it was going on until 1834. Since then, Christians have hardly been peaceful -- I suppose the best argument you could make is that brutality since then generally isn't justified by religion, even when performed by religious people, though you then have to account for the millions who have died because the Pope doesn't like condoms.

You remember the Crusades that everyone likes to beat Christians up for? Do you remember what those were about? The Crusades happened because Muslims were slaughtering Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem.

As Wikipedia says, citation needed.

It was too little, too late, you might say.

Too late to, what, stop a wholesale invasion?

I mean, they're harassing travelers, sure, a response makes sense -- though, to be fair, this was their territory, and I don't see any particular reason they should allow Christian pilgrims into one of the most sacred places to Islam.

And I certainly don't see the response being merited after they stopped, regardless of why they stopped.

Violence due to the teachings of Islam has been a serious problem for over a thousand years, the stuff we see today is nothing new.

You may want to be more clear what you mean by "the stuff we see today" -- individual, isolated violent acts have been happening all over the place for thousands of years. Jesus himself got violent with a fig tree.

to say Islam is a non-violent religion you have to completely ignore the last thousand years and the teachings of Islam that spurred them on.

I don't. I'm just not seeing much of a difference between Islam and Christianity. Both have moderates, extremists, and everything in between, and both have religiously sanctioned excuses for violence. Both have a history of all kinds of violence and injusti

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

The Bible doesn't advocate anything, it's a book.

Erm, what? Since when are books not permitted to advocate things? Would it make you happy if I used the word "prescribes"?

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

Sounds like the evaluation of someone who hasn't read either very thoroughly.

Please explain how anything in the Book of Judges advocates peace.

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

You take quotes out of context

Please explain what context it makes sense for a rape victim to be stoned for the "crime" of being raped -- or in what context that passage means something other than what it says.

The "context" argument is bullshit. Much as the god-of-the-gaps continues to shrink, the amount of "context" that's required for it to make sense keeps expanding, until eventually, it's claimed that I must read the entire book, cover-to-cover, in order to appreciate what any one passage means.

you take them literally. At no time in history has the entirety of Torah been taken literally in matters of law. It has always been interpreted.

Well, no, there are actually people who interpret it literally, apparently including myself, so that claim is false on its face.

The Torah never punishes victims. Rape is not punished by death for either party.

And where does the Torah say this? From the quote I cited, it certainly looks like the opposite is true.

The Torah never claims that there will be some point in the future when no non-Jews exist,

No, it just tells you what to do when you find a non-Jew in your midst.

So given all of this...

You know almost nothing.

What I know, I've actually cited. The most compelling argument you've made is to call me a name. If I really am that clueless, show me. Otherwise, it's my quotes against your opinions.

Re:You don't say

[laddiebuck]

I'm sorry, I meant since the war, as that was what we were talking. Since the war Japan hasn't had a serious military and certainly not an independent one.

Germany is a big success story, but undeniably a lot of it was foreign investment and later trade. Left to her own devices, even without war reparations, there's no reason to believe a second Weimar wouldn't have happened (economically, at least).

Re:You don't say

[sznupi]

Well duh, that's the thing with Germany (and generally few others highly industrialised nations) - they live from trade; being an industrial powerhouse not only causes the region to rely on them (that's the second major reason why post-WW2 Germany was allowed to succeed BTW), but also makes them dependant on those they trade with ("foreign investment" is too simple)

And with Japan...still, it came through like Japan is incapable of having serious military. They certainly can do it, just weren't allowed to for a long time.

Re:You don't say

[hairyfeet]

Where does freedom include "freedom to break the laws of the land" huh? Can you show me where in the constitution that is? Because I can't find it. EVERY other minority group has at LEAST attempted integration into larger society. But now we have a minority that does NOT want to integrate, or respect others, or frankly even acknowledge the rights of others to exist.

They do NOT follow local laws, instead following Sharia, they do NOT teach respecting others or accept that other opinions may have a right to be had, instead preaching Jihad and death to infidels, even to little kids, and you honestly think they are gonna...what? Just wake up one day and decide not to be evil? That being around those with other values will somehow "rub off" on them? WAKE UP!!

But like I said, I don't have to convince you, because you are gonna get a ringside seat to what happens when the Islamic "infection" (And thanks for that, I couldn't have come up with a better term) spreads like a cancer amongst those that teach a "live and let live" philosophy. Not to Godwin, but seriously expecting them to just "get over it" is like expecting those raised under the Nazi regime and had their head filled with "they are the master race" to suddenly start treating non Aryans with love and respect.

As far as they are concerned you are an infidel. They are well within their rights according to their beliefs to kill you because you are nothing in the eyes of their God, full stop. These are the same people that strap bombs to kids and teach them with cute bunnies to kill the infidel. Do you HONESTLY think that with that level of indoctrination that normal assimilation will happen?

But you just watch, France will fall first. There will be bombings and escalating violence (which if you actually watched the video I linked to instead of hiding and mocking you have seen this happens EVERY SINGLE TIME the Muslims get over 25%, every. single. time.) until they get more and more laws subverted to their beliefs, and those that speak against them are attacked and killed,, until they reach a super majority when the freedoms that France once had WILL be replaced by Sharia law, a brutal backwards system of Theocracy. Watch and see, watch and learn. In less than 60 years the non Muslim countries will be able to be counted on one hand, how will you fight then?

Whether you accept it or not, this is a war. A war between two belief systems that makes the old Cold War look like a joked in comparison. It is a war they intend to win, by using your own beliefs against you. Do they give YOU the same courtesies when you are in THEIR countries? FUCK NO! What you have now is a one sided equation, where you offer them freedoms and equality and they spit in your face and follow their own primitive theocracy. If you offer me freedom of speech, and I use it to take away your right to speak against me, is that really freedom? We are seeing that now even here in the USA, with CC afraid of doing anything to offend the jihads. Satire and parody has always been one of the great ways to expose lies, and that is being taken away from us. Do you support that?

Because they are using your freedoms against you my friend. They may be evil but they aren't stupid. They have seen the weakness of the west and are exploiting it to the fullest. But watch and see, watch France burn. Then maybe you'll change your tune.

Re:You don't say

[Skreems]

That being around those with other values will somehow "rub off" on them?

Based on the liberal minority who were terrorized by the fundamentalists after the Iranian revolution in 1980, and the westernization of Islamic youth in European countries, yes. At least some of the time, I expect democratic values to rub off on some of the more hard line elements. Not the core of that group, but at the edges. It happened with Christianity, remember.

Do you HONESTLY think that with that level of indoctrination that normal assimilation will happen?

No, but I also don't think that level of indoctrination is anywhere near a majority, ESPECIALLY outside of fundamentalist regime countries.

As far as they are concerned you are an infidel. They are well within their rights according to their beliefs to kill you because you are nothing in the eyes of their God, full stop.

Yeah, and Ronald Reagan said that Atheists shouldn't be allowed to testify in court. Without any Muslim infiltration, the PotUS in the last couple decades was ready to dismiss basic my civil liberties because I don't believe in his god. As far as I'm concerned you're all fuckheads, and it's just a matter of degrees.

which if you actually watched the video I linked to instead of hiding and mocking you have seen this happens EVERY SINGLE TIME the Muslims get over 25%, every. single. time.

I did watch the video. I noticed those numbers. I also noticed that every single example that "proved" what happens when Muslims reach a majority were countries that have been Muslim for a long damn time. I also noticed a distinct lack of any example of a country that was democratic and non-Muslim "falling" to the Muslim invasion. So yes, there are several countries out there, which have been Muslim for a long time, and haven't made the jump to a peaceful democratic society. Yes, Iran fell from a democratic Muslim society to a fundamentalist theocracy. Getting from there to "European democracies will fall" is a pretty big logical leap. The simple fact is we don't really know WHAT will happen yet.

It is a war they intend to win, by using your own beliefs against you. Do they give YOU the same courtesies when you are in THEIR countries? FUCK NO!

Well, fuck it. Let's dismantle our system of democracy, respect, and freedom because some people are assholes. I guess we just can't have nice things.

If you offer me freedom of speech, and I use it to take away your right to speak against me, is that really freedom?

Yes. A thousand times, yes. If you really believe in freedom of speech, you don't get to censor what you dislike. You don't even get to censor the ones who speak out against it, although you should probably speak up in rebuttal. The entire concept of democracy is self-governance, not governance-by-those-you-agree-with. It may prove not to work against a pervasive cult such as you seem convinced exists within Islam, but I'd prefer to give it a bit more of a chance before we discard it in order to "save" it.

Muhammed? (sp)

[swell]

Who is this Muhammed? I remember decades of hearing about Mohamed, the prophet, and I currently know about 8 people with that name.

My friends are what we used to call Moslems. There must be hundreds of books referring to Moslems, but today the media has forgotten that word.

Is nothing sacred any more?

Re:You don't say

[agbinfo]

I don't understand this. You call their religion a disease and a delusion and you think that doesn't insult them? OK. Maybe not as much as calling their beloved prophet a pedophile but still. Also, how often do you meet religious extremists?

Re:You don't say

[agbinfo]

In short, just as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who understand what it is they are reading and those who are fucktard, sock puppets void of any rational thought or ability to critically think for themselves.

In short as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups. Those who pretend to know what to believe and those who follow. There is no right and wrong group. There's only wrong and wrong.

True followers of Islam are extremely peaceful and also accept both the Torah/Old Testament, as well as many of the Christian Gospels, as tenets of faith and articles to be read and understood.

You cannot possibly know what true followers of Islams are like because you don't get to decide what a true believer is. Are you trying to say that your interpretation is better? You sound like the fortune teller who claims that reading tea leaves is much more accurate than astrology. I agree that not all Muslims are dangerous but unfortunately it's the religion itself that is dangerous.

Re:You don't say

[MaXimillion]

Where' I'm from, we call it Judaism

Re:You don't say

[sjames]

The Koran also says Christians and Jews aren't infidels.

Re:You don't say

[GooberToo]

In short as with any religion, you can basically divide people into two groups.

You don't have to be part of a religion to read and comprehend. Likewise, you can be in a religion and not be a brainless zealot.

There's only wrong and wrong.

Meaning this is factually incorrect.

You cannot possibly know what true followers of Islams

You're, assuming no one actually reads and comprehends. But since people can read and the majority of Muslims are not extremists, who also completely agree with my statement, its safe to say my statements are completely accurate and yours are, well, seemingly very biased, misleading, and completely inaccurate.

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

Plenty of Islams seem to disagree with that interpretation, but it's actually irrelevant. I don't think it's any better to be killing Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, or anyone else simply because they don't believe in the same god you do.

Re:You don't say

[sjames]

I'm certainly not in favor of killing any of the above, but it does show that people tend to pick and choose the parts of their religion to follow or ignore. Blaming all Muslims for the nut jobs running around in the middle east threatening people is like blaming all Christians for the crazy white power nut jobs twisting the Bible to their purposes./p

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm not blaming all the Christians or all the Muslims, though I suspect that mainstream Muslim culture tends to be more violent and less in favor of individual freedoms than mainstream Christian culture.

No, my issue is with the religions themselves, with what's actually in the holy books, what's being taught, and what forms the foundation of their ideology. Some of it is actually fairly innocuous -- for example, the idea of an immortal soul would tend to lead to a devaluing of the one life we know we have. Some of it is downright sinister.

No one is ever killed in the name of atheism, or rationalism, or science. People are killed in the name of one god or another, and it seems every god who's been called a god has their share of holy wars in their name.

Re:You don't say

[sjames]

No, my issue is with the religions themselves, with what's actually in the holy books, what's being taught, and what forms the foundation of their ideology.

It's two sides of the same coin. If your ONLY exposure to Christianity was the white power nut jobs, you might find the whole thing distasteful.

I also must ask, WHICH Muslim culture? It's not like they all know each other or share common backgrounds.

Yes, religions are commonly abused as excuses for killing. In more secular cultures, we use imaginary WMDs nobody has ever seen instead, but the result is the same. Other symbols people have united under for the purpose of killing include flags and monarchs. When leaders get bloodthirsty, they'll FIND some symbol or another that they can get people to care about.

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

I also must ask, WHICH Muslim culture? It's not like they all know each other or share common backgrounds.

They do have the Quran in common, and most have more than that.

It also seems to me (though I have only anecdotal evidence for this) that the more moderate Muslims are strangely silent about their more extreme brothers. Even those who disagree about violence now, when I talk to them for any length of time, they will try to justify Sharia law, and they will try to blame the victim in cases like this.

In more secular cultures, we use imaginary WMDs nobody has ever seen instead, but the result is the same.

Perhaps, but it's worth considering that the people who pushed these imaginary WMDs did believe they were doing God's work. There were Bible verses on military briefings, and they were pretty fucking scary verses.

WMDs may have been the outward justification, but I'm not convinced it was the real motive.

Other symbols people have united under for the purpose of killing include flags and monarchs. When leaders get bloodthirsty, they'll FIND some symbol or another that they can get people to care about.

All of which tends to involve non-critical thinking, blindly following, demonizing and dehumanizing an enemy while promoting the "good" side's cause to something very like a religion.

Organized religion trains the mind to think in exactly this way. Follow the leader, don't question. Do as you're told, and there will be a reward at the end. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, misguided at best, but likely the enemy, and not worth listening to in any case.

I don't know that religion is the only source of problems like this, but it seems any solution will not be kind to religion.

Re:You don't say

[agbinfo]

you can be in a religion and not be a brainless zealot.

Yes you can. Being brilliant in one thing doesn't stop someone from being totally wrong in something else.

You're, assuming no one actually reads and comprehends.

Given that there are countless interpretations; Given that there are no axioms that Muslins, or other religious groups, can actually rely on; Given that the authors are all dead and didn't provide Coles notes; Given that the texts are usually translations and that not all translations are the same; I would say that my assumptions that the text cannot be interpreted is very well founded.

But since people can read and the majority of Muslims are not extremists, who also completely agree with my statement...

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. That fact that you use it is in contradiction with your argument that people can read and comprehend

its safe to say my statements are completely accurate and yours are, well, seemingly very biased, misleading, and completely inaccurate.

They might seem that way to you. The fact that you pretend to know what the texts are saying tells me I'm right. You believe your interpretation to be right and so does the next guy. You might say murder is wrong but you'll also find arguments to allow it. You say that the Muslim religion is based on three books that contradict each other and pretend that YOU know how to interpret it.

I think you're just proving my point.

Re:You don't say

[GooberToo]

Given that there are no axioms that Muslins,

Yes, there are. Its called the Torah and Old Testament; on which Islam is entirely based.

That fact that you use it is

Context is everything.

The fact that you pretend

Thankfully I'm not pretending; unlike you. Because reading is hard?!? The confusion comes from others, telling others HOW they are supposed to apply the readings. Much like the US Constitution, its not that hard. That is in fact, one of the largest divides which exist in Muslim sects. Almost without failure, an 8th grader (assuming they can get past the language barrier) is able to read such text and tell you what it means. The confusion comes from those who hope to abuse/use the text for their own purposes and alternate agendas. Regardless, reading and understanding isn't that hard so long as the purpose is capable in the first place.

Granted, with biblical text it does sometimes take some specific knowledge of the period to really understand what's being said but the really basic stuff - is just that - basic. Is it really rocket science to understand, "Thou Shall Not Kill?" Of course not. And it is these basic concepts which are ripe in both Christianity and Islam. Because of this, no "pretending" is required. Frankly, "pretending" is only required to reach any other conclusion. Which is why its obvious you've taken this route and projecting onto others.

Seriously, before you bother to spew more fallacies, bother to learn some recent history. It wasn't even until the 60s or 70s that Islam was so widely "re-interpreted" by extremists such that we have the modern Muslim terrorists. History it self proves you're waaaay out into left field - which even further validates what I'm saying.

To reach any other conclusion is going to require more than the silly and plainly wrong information you're shoveling my way.

Re:You don't say

[agbinfo]

Given that there are no axioms

Yes, there are. Its called the Torah and Old Testament; on which Islam is entirely based.

First you claim that you can read and understand then you demonstrate your inability to do so. An axiom is a something to be taken as truth either because it is self-evident or as a basis for a discussion. You can't take the Old Testament and the Torah which are volumes and contain contradictions and use them as axioms. The closest thing you'd find to an axiom in the Old Testament is the 10 commandments. However, depending on the version of the bible you select, they differ.

Seriously, before you bother to spew more fallacies, bother to learn some recent history. It wasn't even until the 60s or 70s that Islam was so widely "re-interpreted" by extremists such that we have the modern Muslim terrorists.

Since Islam is a re-interpretation of the New Testament which itself is supposed to supersede the Old Testament. Since the New Testament is an amalgamation of books selected somewhat arbitrarily, how exactly can you tell who has the proper interpretation.

I prefer your interpretation to theirs if it means I won't get blown to pieces but my preferences don't matter - if it did, we'd all be atheists and finding other reasons to kill each other. Anyone can have their own interpretation and nothing makes yours more accurate than those of others. You're all interpreting fairy tells as far as I'm concerned. But, you can't see that. You refuse to see that.

Re:You don't say

[sjames]

I would say the problem is twofold. Blindly following leaders and a lack of critical thinking on the part of the masses is a huge part of it, especially when the blind followers are willing to censure and otherwise punish those who choose not to follow.

The big problem with religion is that it's too easily abused by the power hungry to accomplish their personal agenda under the guise of "God's will".

As for WMDs, I'm rather sure they were not the actual reason, just a faked up justification. Really, even before Bush got elected in 2000, I predicted that he would some way, somehow get us involved in a war in the middle east. It didn't take much reading between the lines to guess he wanted such a war and it wasn't hard to figure out that he was perfectly willing to lie, cheat, and steal if necessary to make it happen.

Re:You don't say

[sjames]

I suspect blind following and a lack of critical thought are the key issues. Religion is a convenient focal point but lacking that, others can, will, and have been found. Religious thought in the absence of blind following can and has lead people to shun violence and other sins of less than honorable leaders as well.

Re:You don't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

Religion is a convenient focal point but lacking that, others can, will, and have been found.

And when they do, they will look suspiciously like religion. In particular, the idea of faith is a remarkably dangerous one -- other things can demand faith, certainly, but it's actually built into the structure of many religions.

It's also disgusting the way religion can clothe hateful thought in a guise of respectability, especially when the moderate masses are silent...

Religious thought in the absence of blind following can and has lead people to shun violence and other sins of less than honorable leaders as well.

Secular thought has, also. It doesn't take a religious mind to say, "Maybe we shouldn't be killing people just because we're weirded out by what they do in the bedroom." It also doesn't take a religious mind to say, "Let's kill those faggots." It does take a religious mind to say, "Killing those faggots is the right thing to do," or as a Westboro Baptist Church protester once said, "I don't hate them. God hates them."

Or, as Christopher Hitchins likes to point out, religion is the one thing which can consistently make good people do bad things. Without religion, it's hard to imagine why any loving parent would willingly mutilate (or allow another to mutilate) the genitalia of their child. With religion, loving parents do it all the time.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you can justify religion as a good thing unless it's actually true.

Latest News regarding matters that maybe linked...

[Kiesha]

Well, It seems there was a car bomb found just opposite the comedy central headquarters, In my opinion it maybe related to the sp episode This episode is still available on the wolrd wide web in multiple places, Example South Park Episodes