Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan Court Orders Facebook Ban Over Mohammed Images
jitendraharlalka writes with this excerpt from Al Jazeera English: "A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site Facebook after a user-generated contest page encouraged members to post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic Lawyers Movement complained that a page called 'Draw Mohammed Day' is blasphemous. ... 'We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to Internet service providers,' Khurram Mehran, a spokesperson for the PTA, said."
There is no such thing as a reasonable theocracy.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
How anybody who isn't a member of a religion could be committing blasphemy within the framework of that religion is beyond me.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does not drawing the Prophet Mohamed hurt anyone?
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does DRAWING the Prophet Mohammad hurt anyone?
Sent from your iPad.
-
/|\
( ) - Hi! I'm the Prophet Mohammed! I KILL YOU!
-
|
|
/ \
Now kill everyone on Slashdot for Allah because of my "art".
I don't agree with how Thunderf00t is conveying his message but he has made an important point. Islamic Censorship has gone way way too far. I support free speech, and secular, rational thinking. I do think that religion is sort of the Human biological equivalent of a computer virus, or malware. (Most Windows users on the face of the Earth are infected with malware of some sort. Equivalently, most Human brains are infected with a Malware called Religion. The virus is different in different parts of the world, but its still a virus.
Computer malware makes computers function in ways it shouldn't to propagate the virus. Religion makes Humans behave in ways or experience things in ways they shouldn't. Computer viruses are created by malicious Humans to steal money, and cover commit other crimes. Religions exist to steal money, and rationalize the committing of other crimes that would not normally be acceptable in secular culture.
I can definitely understand iconoclasm - the desire to prevent mere symbols from being more important than the core idea. Applied to Islam, it would be a prophet's desire that his message not be cheapened by allowing it to be tied too deeply with its imperfect messenger.
What I don't understand is how that is turned around and transformed into these series of death threats (and actions, and laws) that in effect make the depiction of the man more important than the depiction of the beliefs he was supposed to represent.
Is that really the first priority for those who want to spread the ultimate revealed truth of the universe - playing image police against every person who is not a believer? Seems a rather silly priority to have in the context.
Ryan Fenton
How about a photo? Like maybe Andreas Serrano's "Piss Christ".......as far as I know, Serrano is still walking the streets (no bodyguards) without fear of being beheaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I respect the Muslim religion, just as I respect Christianity, Buddhism*, etc.
I don't. Adults having imaginary friends sounds more like a serious mental condition that needs professional treatment, not respect.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
OK ... I think that women should be free, not slaves. Evolution is pretty obvious, killing innocents is a sin, I could go on ...
Why do THEY get to offend my religious sensibilities? Why should their ideas get precedence?
Respect the status quo, never question authority or religion. Never do anything controversial. People have a right to not be offended.- Things a total tool says.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
My parents taught me that sticking my hand into a fire was hot, that I'd get hurt and that I shouldn't do it. Surely these Facebook taunters learned that too?
That's not being prudent. That's being a coward.
Surely you're not suggesting that we relinquish our right to draw WHATEVER THE FUCK WE PLEASE, because someone is threatening us with bodily harm if we draw something that displeases them.
It is only natural for people to resist when their most basic right of self-expression is violated.
At this point, western democracies need to make a stand against the violence of radical Islam, even if it takes such comical form. If we fold any time they threaten us with violence, then we will live according to THEIR rules in no time.
I don't support any of the two views (extremists and provocateurs), but the message you are passing is:
"Certain religious people have some sensibility to something. If you provoke them and they kill you, it's your fault".
It's that kind of message that encourages the provocateurs, not the sensibility. It's just disrespectful (while maybe a service) to make fun of other people's sensibilities, religious or not. But it's simply unacceptable to consider such a reaction acceptable.
Religion is free to tell their believers what they cannot do. But they cross the line when they want non-believers to abide to their laws.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
It's not to get a rise out of htem, it's to demonstrate to a small minority of radicals that their extreme religious beliefs do not trump the free speech of others, and that the attempts of extremists to kill and censor such speech will not be tolerated by the world community.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
One right we absolutely don't have is the right to not be offended.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Funny thing is, you really have to either admit that the Quran is open to some interpretation, or admit that marrying kids is okay. Some people say that, because sometimes at the time the first digit was left off when it was known (ex a 23 year old marking their age as 3 when it was known that they were in their twenties), so some say Aisha may have been 19. I don't know if that's true or not though, so take that with a grain of salt. Also, some might say that, because such things were products of their time, it should be viewed in the context day. For the hardline theotards though, that's reinterpreting the Quran, which is a big no-no, but you never hear then really caring that their profit is a pedophile. The finer points of logic are often lost on people like that. Muslims can believe whatever they want, but they should think about it. Do you modernize and moderate your faith, or is you god's number one dude a pedophile? Those are your only two options, pick one.
One word... tolerance.
Bill Maher said it best on that one.
Let us not become so tolerant, that we tolerate intolerance.
There is nothing I could possibly add to that.
Grow up, boy.
Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.
So asserting my constitutional rights makes me a bigot now?
What does the rant above make you?
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?
Plenty. Yet if I draw a Jesus taking a load in the face, I can walk down the street reasonably sure that I'm not going to get shot.
How 'bout that?
One word... tolerance.
Good point. Radical Muslims should really be more tolerant of those who do not follow their religion, and are therefore not bound by its rules.
Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
We're still talking about the Muslims who get so worked up over a cartoon that they want to kill someone over it, right?
Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.
Any Muslim who is a normal person like me won't give a shit about any cartoon. Anyone making threats over a cartoon simply needs to learn not to take themselves so seriously.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well, western democracies block cartoon image of children, so I guess the great karma circle is now complete. Or else it's a death spiral of censorship. Either way, the outrage brigade gets what they want and the rest of us will just have to accept a more restricted web whether we live in Karachi or California.
May the Maths Be with you!
My God is real.
Your God is not real
My God doesn't want people to do X
This applies to everyone because they're believing in the wrong God.
Doing Gods work gets me into heaven.
These people insult God, therefore killing them means I'm protecting God.
Therefore God owes me a seat.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"So because no one can rule out complete solipsism people have to take claims about God seriously?
If I had a dollar for every theist who asked me to disprove God... And another for every time I have to explain logical fallacies and critical thought...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
Because many religions (particularly christianity and islam) actively seek to impose their worldview on those who do not share their beliefs. It is a key part of their belief system that they expressly do not respect the fact that I don't believe in their god. According to some of them I should be put to death for not converting to their irrational worship. Adults who believe you should respect their imaginary friends and will hurt you if you don't is not something I'm particularly inclined to respect. If they keep their crazy beliefs to themselves they'll never have a problem with me. But there always seem to be those who can't resist trying to convert the unbelievers by any means necessary.
Disrespecting their religious views just to get a rise out of them is counterproductive, and when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.
Surprised? I don't think anyone is surprised at how crazy religious zealots get. That is also not a compelling argument for appeasing them or their crazy irrational beliefs.
Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
Depends on who is doing the poking.
But going out of your way to say "fuck you, here's what we think of your religion" just to try to provoke a group of extremists who are prone to violence doesn't make much sense.
It makes plenty of sense in the same way that mass protests against a misbehaving government make sense. If you tell them "the emperor has no clothes" just by yourself they might kill you. If thousands or millions say something is crazy, irrational and wrong then it is harder for those in power to push back. There is power in groups of people who are unwilling to be cowed by those in power. This demand that we "respect" their religious idol is an attempt to coerce MY behavior and I'm not willing to be coerced. When hundreds of thousands of people point out that they are being a bully and aren't going to take it any more then the crazies lose power.
morality can easily exist without religion. In fact its better. In the bible, people are punished terribly and painfully for even the slightest sin, or possibly forgiven for the worst sins if they can make jesus orgasm. Oh, and if you don't, you get tortured for eternity. And people think Gitmo was bad. Hitler ain't got SHIT on God. God is perhaps the most unethical proposed existence I have ever heard of.
Human rights? They are fought by religion, and protected by the same people who work to protect truth, science, and logic.
Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also,
Like some have stated here, there are many schools of Buddhism and their beliefs vary, but in general Buddha is not seen as a deity. It may refer to the historic Gautama Buddha, the concept of Buddha nature or a human that has attained supreme enlightenment. None of these are deities. Other beings in Buddhism, such as the Devas, are closer to what is referred to as deity in other religions, but not quite.
It offends their religious sensibilities. I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
Then why is it that every single other religion has grown out of these stupidities and don't resort to violence in the 21st century.
Why is it that I can make cartoons of Jesus all I want, make fun of Buddha, criticize Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), declare that the big bang was a myth, prove Zeus never existed, and any other religious symbol other than those related to Islam and various small, irrational cults and have nothing more than angry letters?
There is a difference between respect and cowardice. And my respect ends when a religion tramples over human rights to make a point.
Every other religion has earned the right to have respect other than Islam and a few small cults. They don't trample over human rights and don't resort to violence. Why Islam gets a free pass is only because of cowardice.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Grow up, boy.
I'll jump in since I'm WELL past the age where I could be described as a "boy" you condescending prick.
When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
Bullshit. There are sometimes things that cannot under any circumstances be tolerated. There are some world views that simply cannot peacefully coexist. There are those who will attempt to conquer, destroy, enslave and humiliate. I should just tolerate this? I think you are the one who needs a dose of the real world.
Oscar Wilde actually said it best "everything in moderation, including moderation". That applies to tolerance too.
It was common at the time for girls to marry around 13.
By your standard, then, we can all agree that he was a pedophile because
Muhammad is said to have asked her to arrange for him to marry both. Traditional sources dictate that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad but the marriage was not consummated until she was nine or ten years old.
You know, I have to give the old goat props in that he invented a much more viral religion than Ronnie Hubbard. You get to marry kids (if you're into that sort of thing), if anyone disagrees with you then it's probably because they're infidels and you may kill them and take their stuff, and you can beat your wife to keep her in line as long as you do it right. Ron aimed for the idle wealthy. Hammy snared the disenfranchised, uneducated masses. They don't make nearly as much on average, but there's an awful lot more of them.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Again, there is still a difference.
People who disagree with abortion view it as murder. People who disagree with the Mohammed images at most can say its "blasphemy". If your going to go after someone, it makes a whole lot more sense to go after someone who you view is a murder than someone who is "defaming" someone who has been dead for centuries.
There is no comparison in this day and age between Islamic violence and violence from almost every other religion.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
In the society in which Muhammad and Aisha lived, marrying at 7 and consummating at 10 was not uncommon, either.
Anyway, I don't see why this particular side of Islam is raised so much. It's really nothing but an appeal to emotion, dressed in such a way as to be a surefire flamebait in today's pedo-witchhunt climate.
There are much better, rational reasons to denounce Islam. Let's focus on them. The whole "Muhammad is a pedophile" meme is childish and does a disservice to the cause.
While I agree with you completely, I don't think that's the big reason why morality without religion is better than with. The big reason is that a grown person should be able to tell between right and wrong without the threat of punishment by a glorified Santa Klaus hanging over their heads. If they can't, that just shows them to be immature at best, dangerous at worst and, ironically, immoral in either case. What happens when their deity tells them to do something horrible? Oh wait, we already know.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
There is a evolutionary basis. Altruism and the morality that comes from it is a beneficial trait to evolve.
There is also a rational basis. Treating others well makes it likely they will return the favor. Cooperation and selflessness creates a better, safer, more prosperous and kinder society for everyone.
What's the basis for following religious morality? Fear of eternal punishment? Hope of eternal reward?
If the physical world is all there is, you'd think killing or mistreating someone would be worse than in a world where an eternal soul exists. Kill someone in reality and you destroy that person forever. In the fantasy world of religion, the person continues to exist and so why it's such a big deal to kill remains unclear.
Preservation of freedom of expression is worth offending billions of people.
Protesting against freedom of expression is not worth killing a single person.
That is the fundamental difference between Western philosophy and (apparently) Islamic philosophy. The Muslim protesters seem to value shutting down someone's speech over life itself.
Congratulations to whomever came up with Draw Muhammad Day. It's time to stop being subservient to hyper-sensitive extremists.
I think we can all agree that there's a big difference between depictions of child molestation/rape and cartoons poking fun at a religious figure.
What? I fail to see ANY difference. What, you don't think no one has has ever felt that blasphemy was horrid, sick and depraved? I'm pretty sure those terms have been applied to all kinds of blasphemy from all kinds of religions.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Convincing others that you're treating them well while all the time stealing more for yourself, and quietly impregnating your friends wives is a much better evolutionary strategy. Being nice most of the time, but backstabbing occasionally is also more rational, but less "moral".
It seems that we also have evolved a sense of cheating and fairness, so it's not necessarily like that. We have the capacity to understand that everyone backstabbing is less beneficial than everyone cooperating, and also the capacity to spot backstabbers.
I don't disagree completely with you, however. Altruism and egoism are present in everyone. A morality that acknownledges this and deals with it seems much more realistic, fair and productive than one that is hypocritical about it. It's very possible to act in self-interest and still be a benefit to others, and it's also possible to claim to be altruistic when you're really not, like Mother Theresa.
What makes it worse? If the physical is all there is, then all killing a person does is remove a roadblock/annoyance/competitor/aggressor. So what? The above has been answered from a sociopath's point of view. I'd rather have a sociopath neighbor who believes in eternal punishment and reward than a sociopath neighbor who is unencumbered by those weights.
I'd rather not have a sociopath neighbor. A secular society that encourages altruism is likely much better to deal with that problem than a society based on superstition and punishment. Many negative behaviors have been condoned by religion and many sociopaths think they're doing god's work. If you're the wrong kind of person and the sociopath kills you for the right religious reason, you'd still be screwed and the sociopath would think he's being rewarded.
I don't think I have to explain why forever erasing your one and only existance is worse than not erasing your existance at all.
Finally, you reason based on a world filled with sociopaths? Usually atheists are the ones blamed for cynicism and a bleak world view...
Being against child molestation is logical morality. Very, very, very few people will believe that raping a child is acceptable.
Big freakin deal. Since no child is molested in the process of drawing a cartoon all of that is irrelevant.
You might as well claim that all those movies out of hollywood are horrid and depraved since murder - an act certainly worse than molestation - is so frequently depicted.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What is the basis for morality without a Higher Power? Why should I follow your morals if the physical is all there is?
Why doesn't your dog kill and eat your family the moment your back is turned?
Answer: What religious people call "morality" is nothing in the world but social instinct. Your dog doesn't need an invisible sky fairy to get along in the world, and neither do you.
Denying holocast in Germany and a few other countries is a crime. It offends the victims, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed is akin to this, but no problem, who cares about these terrorists, freedom of speech must prevail, 1.6 billion be dammed.
First off, Germany probably doesn't have the free-speech ideals that the US has. I don't think anybody vigorously defends a near-absolute position on free-speech the way the US does. When you get a "Western" distaste for censorship, you may be getting a bias from the US.
Second, Germany doesn't have "denying the holocaust" as a crime to protect the victims of it. They have it as a crime to give them some way to lock up the wackos who would try to restart white/aryan supremacy political groups. These groups are perfectly legal in the US, as long as they don't actually harm anyone while espousing their stupidity. If you want to start a white-supremicist party in the US, you can. I doubt you'll get elected, but you can certainly start it and run.
The same country that so vigorously defends your right to run a white-supremicist party (as long as you don't physically harm anyone, or encourage others to physically harm someone) will also defend others' rights to create cartoons of anyone they feel like, whether that is their President, or your Prophet.
The same people who create cartoons of Mohammed will also create cartoons of Jesus. Judaism doesn't seem to have the central figure to pick on, so I've never really noticed cartoons of David or Elijah. However, to your 1.6 billion Muslims, I raise 300 million to 1.9 billion Christians to be offended. Jesus also preached against idolatry, and yet I've never heard an outcry calling for any cartoonist's death over their pictures. Respecting others' right to disagree, even if it's pathetic behaviour, is a good thing to have. Islam does have some problems here.
I like to think of myself as an educated person, a muslim who grew up in a western society, learning values of both. From what I see, the gap between west and Islam is only going to grow with stuff like cartoons of Mohammed, these guys are akin to suscide bombers of afghanistan, working towards inciting violence (which BTW is a crime in Canada).
It's rather offensive that you equate "cartoons" with "suicide bombers". One gives cause to offend, the other kills. That's not morally equivalent. If Islam teaches that it is, I will lose respect for that religion. I may need to dispose of the copy of the Qu'ran that I do have, since it won't be worth anything to me anymore.
Inciting violence is a crime in Canada, sure. But merely being offensive is not "inciting violence." If I hurl curses at your mother, even if you punch me for it, it is not a crime. Punching me would still be assault. Please be more reasonable in your analogies. These are simply not comparable.
Can't you see its offending 1.6 billion people, yet you go ahead and do it.
So? What if I want to offend 1.6 billion people?
What's the maximum amount of people I should be allowed to offend? 1.5 billion?
About the rest of the post, I won't even comment, as rational discussion of religion looks a bit pointless. After all, I don't know how much value have rational reasonings to someone who believes in sky pixies.
While I understand how someone could be offended by deliberate provocation on a subject as important to them as religion, I'm going to side with the people drawing silly, satirical cartoons over the people who make violent threats against those artists. It is not ok to murder or threaten someone for drawing a picture. No matter how angry or offended that picture made you feel. The only reason these artists are "inciting violence" is because the people who commit the violence are acting like silly little children.
The fact that we even have to have this discussion is ludicrous. Grow up and understand that the rest of the world does not share your beliefs and that their criticism of your beliefs *in no way* affects your ability to live the life you desire. People are different and they believe different things. If you don't like someone publishing a picture of Mohammed, you don't have to look at it.
You state: "and west need to understand the Islamic faith and respect it."
Why?
Note, I'm not saying that we should not respect the Islamic faith - just asking you to justify your statement.
There are plenty of other beliefs which originate in the 7th century and which we do not respect.
Why is the Islamic faith a set of beliefs which do deserve respect?
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android