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."
They should block Google too then.
A theocracy would probably want to ban intentional mass blasphemy, especially when it was done for commercial purposes.
You mean the pedophile?
LOLMohammad?
Someone has had to have done that somewhere, right?
I don't get it. I mean, sure, I respect the Muslim religion, just as I respect Christianity, Buddhism*, etc.
But fuck man, relax. It's just those heathen bastards (who are gonna go to hell according to you anyway) so let them have their fun. Please, tell me, exactly HOW does this defile Mohammad? Dude's been dead for a long time. Trust me, he don't give a damn.
*Has this been deemed an official religion?
Sent from your iPad.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if it had 'Draw a Religious Figure Day', that had some of Mohammud but some of any other random religious figure.
I can't find it on Facebook!! What is the group called?
...nothing of value was lost.
Muhammad jihad
This is just going to end badly for some people. Why engage extremists who are looking for a fight? They are looking for some fools to "volunteer" to receive their wrath, and these Facebook yuksters are raising both hands.
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does not drawing the Prophet Mohamed hurt anyone? Surely the bear suit was funnier than any accurate depiction South Park could have come up with (though I was disappointed they didn't use the Sexual Harassment Panda bear suit). 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?
it works fine here.
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
We could just as well as said 'draw jesus fucking magdalene' or jesus jacking off cartoon - or the three wise men making out with mary.
Why not just be - and support it when the cause is just (like the danish cartoons). If we start trying to do something just to offend someone .. it is just unfair.
{$$}8-)>~
... Please don't behead me.
from one of the more erudite promoters of draw Muhammad day, thunderf00t.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ok4njJXI8
-
/|\
( ) - Hi! I'm the Prophet Mohammed! I KILL YOU!
-
|
|
/ \
Now kill everyone on Slashdot for Allah because of my "art".
So now the Anarchist's Cookbook should have a watermark of caricatures of Mohammed. Not only does the writer get a good free speech exercise, it prevents al-queda from learning howto make bombs! Do it with top secret nuclear documents, as well.
Before people cry 'dude relax...what's the big deal?', they need to read their history. Remember that Islam is many centuries younger than Christianity. If one looks at Christianity from circa 1550 they will see atrocities, brutalizing of the irreverent, and murdering of heretics. Sometimes en masse. Heck, even so-called Christian nations felt Jesus' image was too sacred to display on-screen until the early 1900's
And before you say, 'yeah but this is 2010, they should be over that in these modern times!', remember that the real world is not like a game of Civilization; not all cultures started at the same time. In a few centuries, or less, Islam will be mellowed out.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
...and this is what? Last time I checked it was the 21st century. I wish there was a solution to this mess, but I fear there never will be...
At least they didn't demand the killing of the page owner!
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
Hello, it's called FACEbook! How long did you think it would be before Mohammed's face ended up on there?!
While not explicitly stated in the Qur'an, depiction of Mahomet is more or less banned by the religion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad ).
So religous extremists tend to get mad - and as radicals muslims (as radical christians) tend to see the whole world as subject to their law... Well, things happens.
If christian religous nuts (says, the guys from Rapture Ready, for example) had established a theocracy somewhere... Don't you think they would try to shut down Facebook if there was a "Draw Jesus doing bad things" ?
The problem here is that somehow, religous people have a theocracy running. The nature of the religion behing it is kinda irrelevant.
I wouldn't be happy living in a theocracy - even, say, a Bouddhist one. Or in any regim that see its rules & viewpoints as absolutes...
I'd like to see caricatures of mohammed everywhere. Give these nutters a choice of abandon your stupid ideas, or leave the internet. I've had enough of religion. Enough.
What does it take to get Facebook banned in the US? I'm totally behind that project. /me checks his Facebook account.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Now if I want to keep islamic scriptkiddies, hacktivists and religious freaks off my website, all I have to do is post some pictures of muhammed and the governments will help me to keep them out of my server? Sweet!
I'm Christian by birth, non-practicing & gave up on organised religion a long time ago because I'm a perfectly nice, law-abiding & considerate citizen without it - and anyone who knocks at my home trying to gain my interest in their religion, gets told to politely "Sod off".
However, if other people want to be part of an organised religion then I have no problem with that and don't consider it my place to inflict my irreligious views on them.
But quite clearly, the Facebook contest was done to *DELIBERATELY* incite religious harassment of Moslems and that is wrong, pure & simple. It's a well published fact that Moslems are offended by caricatures of Mohammed and I don't see how it's that important to feel the need to launch some kind of protest to force it down the throats of everyone, Muslim or non-Muslim.
Sorry, but if it was caricatures of disabled people or soldiers or killed in Afghanistan, then everyone would be up-in-arms about it and someone would be offended by it.
I'm all for Free Speech but I'm more for people demonstrating some intelligence & compassion when it comes to accepting others who look different or have different beliefs - inciting hatred is pathetic!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Guess they are concerned for Mohammed's privacy...?
If no one knows what Mohammed looks like, how can you tell if someone is drawing a picture of him? Can I make a sketch of Lady Gaga and then scrawl "Mohammed" under it and expect a fatwa? More interestingly, can I scrawl "Mohammed" under someone else's drawing and have them killed?
But there are religions that have no deity, or "imaginary friends" as you've stated.
As long as you know your friends are imaginary, what is the harm? Even children know that their imaginary friends exist in a different reality than other people do. Just imagine a Christian with a reasonably constructed, imaginary Jesus. "Hey Jesus, what should I do? Oh? Not be an asshat? Great!"
8-D -- Prophet Mohammed
Maybe the Pakistanis should go all Vader on Facebook.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
More fairy tales.
Uggh.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
That should guarantee even more ire.
The actual problem is that an image of Mohammed might lead to Mohammed worship instead of worship of Allah.
Of course worship of Mohammed is exactly what has happened. Anyone held in that much reverence is de-facto being worshiped.
Such as?
That makes it the 20th.
Reason is having its First Annual Everybody Draw Mohammad Day
If you want to be effective on the internet (which, contra a lot of optimistic mid 90's blather about the impossibility of censorship, can actually be censored with some degree of efficacy) you want to put the would-be censor in the position of upsetting as many "good, honest, law-abiding citizens" as possible if he choses to go after you. If they can just quietly squelch you, those people will cheer. If they have to cut off those people's lolcat supply to squelch you, there will be grumbling.
With this in mind, things like Facebook are excellent targets. If you just set up mohammedporcinebestiality.com, or something, you might attract a certain amount of outrage; but you could be blocked with basically zero collateral damage. If, on the other hand, you make heavy use of sites with "legitimate" uses, you can effectively force the fundies into the position of either enduring you or inflicting a DOS attack on themselves.
I think this goes deeper than religious silliness - with facebook out of the way, the court/government has paved the way for a domestic competitor to take over pakistan's social networking needs! tinfoil hats, everyone!
No Facebook? ...
This is the first time I wish I were Pakistani, and all my friends too. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Nothing like an extremist to use a club where a feather would be more appropriate. Yes, instead of blocking a page or ten, block the whole site. Apparently even a lego figure labelled "Mohammed" is blasphemy. Now what about people named Mohammed? If they wear an ID tag that says "Mohammed", isn't that blasphemous? Are they not to be killed? Surely everyone named Mohammed is being blasphemous, and must be killed! Clearly this is taking a rule, --not worshiping a created image of Mohammed-- and expounding on it --any figure or picture of anyone or thing named Mohammed-- getting yourself all worked up about infidels and blasphemy and whatnot, then issuing death orders. Yep, old Mo would be real cheerful about that. He is happy to issue orders about not making images and worshiping, but killing to keep the rule, not a problem. Nut jobs (and there are a lot of them) sure make Islam look like a cult. Its only with cults that you have to have extremists trying to defend and protect something like this. It doesn't have enough going for it on its own to attract followers. You have to force people. That makes it a cult. It doesn't have enough going for it for people to respect it. You have to force them (and make up stupid rules). That makes it a cult. They may as well be worshiping U.F.O.'s and bubblegum wrappers.
I never understood this. I am a hindu and having seen Muslims closely, I know they are very sensitive about religion. There are some extremists who are hell-bent on making it seem like islam will die if something or the other goes wrong like this posting of Mohammed cartoons and everyone has to wage war. Here in US, we have what I see is Bully culture - if you have sensibilities, you are basically screwed. Naturally the US and Islam are at odds. I dont think it is right to insult some religion just because it happens to be protected as your fundamental right to draw. I dont think it is right to make death threats over it either. How will we ever make these 2 sides agree over anything if neither of them are going to ever relent ?
Natalie Portmanism
let them continue to wall themselves from the rest of the world.
Morons.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
And yet they cheapen the message by threatening to kill anyone who dares so much as draw a picture of that same messenger whom they so adore. They are worshiping Mohammad whether they admit it or not.
I have alot more respect for people who believe in God than I have for you and your pompous psychiatric advice, douche.
Off the top of my head,
Many Buddhist sects.
(Neo-)Druidism.
LaVeyan Satanism.
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
Of course people can draw Mohammed if they want to. But how many
people really have a burning desire to draw him? Just because you
can do something doesn't mean you should. If you're just drawing
Mohammed because you know it will insult a lot of people then you're
an ass.
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.
Mohammed --> >-|-O
Shatnerology.
Circumcision is child abuse.
... that superstition would be subject to rationality or logic?
Your (or anyone's) right to believe in something should end in your imagination. Actions of any kind in the real world are subject to considerations of a very different kind and effect.
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.
Some things should NOT be tolerated. Your line may vary.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
LaVeyan Satanism.
You must be joking. Why I bet there are more people that have "Jedi" as a religion then that.
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.
Between that and the Anti-Choice movement folks who post abortion doctors home addresses and schedules on websites, just in case any of their viewers want to go sniping that day. Hatred is hatred, and just as unacceptable for Christians as it is in Muslims.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I read somewhere that the LDS has branches devoted to this, and that they are so heavily into genealogy because they believe they can baptize dead people by proxy. Thats what some elements of the Church of LDS are actively engaged in, baptizing our dead ancestors into their church so that come Judgement day, they all get to go to heaven (or whatever they actually believe happens, I am not sure).
Mind you its no odder than those BA Christians who are actively hoping that Israel will go to war with the Palestinians because if they do it might herald the Second Coming.
Personally, I can't help think the world would be a far better, more peaceful and saner place if all those people who follow religions "of the book" were gone from the Earth.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Sigh.
The new political statement of the 21th century:
"I don't like your point of view so I'm blocking your website from being accessed by the people of my (nation, region, city, ISP users, company, etc.)."
In other news Pakistan is experiencing massive depopulation. When ask why a family was moving the reply was: "I can't do any social networking when they blocked my access to Facebook!"
(blasphemous?) one-pixel depiction of someone named Mohamed as seen on the ground with the naked eye from an airplane:
.
If I hadn't been posting so heavily in the last few days I would have points...
Fundamentalist: If you persist in drawing these blasphemous images, we will call upon the faithful to sacrifice their lives to wipe you from the face of the Earth. ... I keel you.
Westerner: That's ok. We will just call upon our drone operators to wipe you from the face of the Earth and then go home to their families to eat dinner and play the kind of video games that they don't get paid for.
Fundamentalist:
Just because we think being offended by Mohammed images is silly, doesn't mean that it doesn't piss other people off. The closest thing that could compare Mohammed images to would be the N-word for Americans. It is just a simple word, but it has alot of power. I could easily imagine riots over this word. Basically, not everyone looks at the world in the same way. Does it justify murder? Of course not, but you might see why this might be upsetting...
I never understood the issues between Japan and China or Pakistan and India or North and South Korea. From my ignorant perch they appear to be a whole lot more the same than different.
Islam vs Christianity boils down to which factions kept what records of the same events over many years. They BOTH happen to be teaming with vast reservoirs stupid old testimate rehetoric.
Every country has stupid laws and whacked judges who would be doing the world a favor by going away sooner rather than later.
Maybe one day there won't be as percentage of world population soo many arrogant fucktards in the world who are confused into thinking their ideals are superior to anyone elses.
Those individuals need to be careful because those that take offence can be rather dangerous, which is ridiculous really... this should never happen in a free world.
In which case, they should download and run Freenet and do it there, anonymously.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
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.
Censorship is fucking obscene.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Before you protest Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, imagine the following.
Me and my friends break into your house, trash your computer and theaten you and your family with death if you post your criticism of our holy Draw Mohammed Day. Do you still post your reply, or do you back down in consideration of our outrage or fear of our threats?
This is reality for many people. This is what we're protesting. Yes, it's a protest, not a provocation. I'm sure it's provoking, however.
It makes sense to anyone rational that murder would be worse than blasphemy. The entire point of laws are to protect people's rights from being violated. What right is violated in drawing anything? Humans have a right to live, murder violates that. There is no right not to be offended. There is, however a basic human right to have the right to offend. Such a right is needed in a free society.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Considering the very nature of Pakistan and several other nations in the region should they even be allowed to have such things as laws and courts? After all, to most of the world they look like a pack of village idiots.
How do they know what Mohammed looks like? If I draw a picture of Jerry Garcia and call him Jesus... it doesn't make it so. As much as I'd like it to be... ;)
Here we go, maybe we should put this in all our sig's and webpages we maintain:
Smiley Muhammad ibn 'Abdullh:
[[:->
ASCII Muhammad ibn 'Abdullh
____
(____)o
(_____)
| o o |
W ^ W
WWW
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
So.. you're saying it's OK for an organized religion to illegally harrass, threaten, and murder people.. as long as the person they're targeting has committed a "sin" that's not recoginzed as such by the law of their country.
Just because they believe it's murder doesn't make it so. I don't give a fucking rat's ass what their rationalization is - it's still wrong.
Your entire argument is "well, it's not the same because it's different", when it's obviously not different.
Fuck you and your apoligism.
Such a right is needed in a free society.
Hold on, then, did GWB actually have a valid point? I must be misoveranalyzing the situation.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
No, there is no difference in the horrific nature of either philosophy. The main difference is that islam in general accepts the violent acts as "ordained" on a much broader scale. This creates not just isolated pockets of nutjobs as you find in the US protesting abortion but ENTIRE NATIONS of nutjobs and great undulating mobs of nutjobs wanting to overthrow democratically elected governments and install sharia law. Big difference.
Islam, as it is most widely practiced, is mind control masquerading as a sham of a religion (much like dianetics as the op mentions).
So, you are on here venting because at one time you either had or supported an abortion? No one gets that worked up about abortion esp a man without it being personal.
dang it. How Are we ever going to find out what this Mohammed dude looks like???
- No Sig for you!
I don't understand why is it even a news on slashdot.
I think these days its a fashion for media and people to bash Pakistan.
In US people want to have "Freedom of Expression" as their 'holiest' principle, so they are sticking whichever way they like.
In Pakistan people want to have their "Religion" as the 'holiest' thing, so they are sticking with it whichever way they like.
Why so much fuss about it?
...with thier high school boyfriends. Very sad,
Except, of course, for the incidental media play facebook gets and the fact that some of its users want such a day.
What's more interesting is that this is the Pakistani Lawyers, who are usually the voice of reason over there. (i.e. the people who say it's not okay to have dictators in power, and who are a counter to the extremists.) So maybe this is a political move to help them solidify their base and help keep them more attractive to the rank-and-file than the extremists. The idea is to show that moderates support religion, and so not to let religion be too great a tool for the extremists. Or perhaps not.
(I don't actually follow the politics over there, I just have a general sense from a few Pakistanis.)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
It is time that someone starts suing all religions of the world. And the reason should be that religions are just dividing humanity and making us not accountable for our actions.
No, it all depends on your interpretation of the world, you just say murder is worse because that is your reference, and you have forgotten about the after life....
Facebook removed all pages when it comes to Holocaust but since it's Islam then all "Freedom of Speech" is being exercised. BTW, banning Images is in Bible too. Has any Christian or Jew ever read Ten Commandments?
He is the great satan, and must be cast out and stoned.- - Mohamads Wife.
Given the placebo effect exists and is so strong (lots of scientific studies out there proving it), even if there really is no God, a bunch of people who believe in a God who helps them will do better than people who don't believe there's a God. Makes it easier to access the placebo effect- anywhere, anytime. In contrast it would be harder for an "enlightened atheist" to access the placebo effect. This advantage could make a religious group evolutionarily fitter than an atheist group and do better over generations. Why is there a placebo effect in the first place? I don't know, seems it's present in some animals too.
Also, a semi-decent religion would help bias individuals towards behaving altruistically[1] which benefits the group as a whole. The individuals might die sooner or "lose out" from time to time but the group will benefit. [1] Yes I know atheists can be altruistic too. I'm saying that religion has a proven track record of influencing people to do good stuff that they otherwise wouldn't. So what if that person really isn't that good, the bottomline is others still benefit. So overall the group becomes more likely to survive. The group becomes the new evolving organism.
It'll be delusional to design a society that only works if most people are knowledgeable, intelligent, rational and altruistic. You need a system that takes into account the fact that most people are ignorant and irrational.
For some religions, the very idea of a human prophet insults God. Mocking human prophets is a religious act.
Bad enough a Muslim would try to tell me I can't practice my free speech rights. But they are also saying I can't honor God in my chosen way.
How dare they act so contrary to religion. Those who believe in human prophets are infidels.
Shatnerology.
LoL! I was pretty sure that Shatner was the deity in that religion.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH
(The filter cares not for those who are sarcastic.)
The true question is : is muhammed a prophet or not ?
A prophet is a man with miracles from God,
A miracle is a signature from God to authenticate his messengers.
Now. All the prophets miracles disappeared with them (Jesus, moses ..) ...but that muhammed miracle is still here, it's a book, a book named the Quran,
The Quran has been challenging all the humanity to produce even a like of one of its chapters for 14 centuries.
So any candidate for the challenge ?
infidel (nf-dl, -dl)
n.
1. Offensive An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.
[Middle English infidele, from Old French, from Latin nfidlis, disloyal : in-, not; see in-1 + fidlis, faithful (from fids, faith; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots).]
infidel [nfdl]
n
a person who has no religious belief; unbeliever
adj
1. rejecting a specific religion, esp Christianity or Islam
2. of, characteristic of, or relating to unbelievers or unbelief
[from Medieval Latin infidlis, from Latin (adj): unfaithful, from in-1 + fidlis faithful; see feal]
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. infidel - a person who does not acknowledge your god
gentile, heathen, pagan
nonreligious person - a person who does not manifest devotion to a deity
paynim - a heathen; a person who is not a Christian (especially a Muslim)
idol worshiper, idolater, idoliser, idolizer - a person who worships idols
infidel
noun unbeliever, sceptic, atheist, heretic, agnostic, heathen, nonconformist, freethinker, nonbeliever a holy war to drive the infidels out
Translations
infidel [nfdl]
A. ADJ infiel, descreído
B. N infiel mf, descreído/a m/f
the Infidel los descreídos, la gente descreída
infidel [nfdl]
n infidèle mf
adj infidèle
infidel
n (Hist, Rel) Ungläubige(r) mf
infidel [nfdl] (liter)
1. n infedele m/f
2. adj miscredente
1. n infedele m/f
2. adj miscredente
Me: According to your logic, would it be ok to harass anyone that confesses to the anti-choice movement, since they encourage murder of people?
You: No that is not the same, since not everyone from the anti-choice movement are idiots that approve on the murder of doctors.
Me: Well then, the same applies to the muslims, right? You shouldn't judge all muslims by the islamists.
As Frank Herbert put it in God Emperor of Dune: All religions leads eventually to witch hunt. And thus religions are driven by guilt.
You don't know what you don't know.
LaVeyan Satanism.
I bet there are more people that have "Jedi" as a religion then that.
So that makes four :)
On a slightly more serious note, I didn't claim it was a popular religion. But it is an official religion, and dead-serious.
Also, for what it's worth, LaVeyan Satanism!=Worship Of Satan.
AC? This must be a glitch, I'm pretty sure I didn't check the AC box.
They've given us the very tool with which to solve the problem. Put the face of Mohammed on every single useful, item in our society from canned food to computer chips. The religious zealots will in knee-jerk fashion declare all those useful things as blasphemous, and that all good Muslims must abstain from antibiotics, plane travel, food, cars, and clothing from outside their country. Those people with an IQ greater than 3 will immediately decide that maybe the stone age sucks and leave, while the rest slowly sink into cannibalism and wearing mud. We'll have instantly allowed Darwin to take the shallow end of the gene pool. Problem solved in one generation or less.
Hey, do you ask your boss to let you in the office to work on Xmas?
I'm a former Catholic, really a non-practicing Christian and see the Bible as a soap opera to entertain our ancestors. I don't hoard any beliefs in God, Jesus, etc. What I do like are some (not all) of the values associated with it.
Having said that, I still have the hypocritical good feeling towards Xmas and Easter, and the days that we get off work.
@ "HATTA"
YOUR mother is a bitch, a fucking whore who spreads for every man she sees...doesnt even leaves the donkeys!
if someone says this infront o your face, would you just sit there or face away and say nothing in return? as in not react? if so then you are not your mother's son and above all, you will not be able to tolerate there because she is your mother. Muslims, love the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) more than a saint would love his/her mother and look upto him and respect him more than they respect anyone they love or look upon. so just tolerating is no option there. So get a life and teach tolerance to your kids!
No, Reason is not "having" anything. They are reporting on something that showed up at someone else's blog.
I don't know if you've ever read Reason magazine, but if you did, you'd know that they don't have anywhere near the cleverness or sense of humor required for this.
The original is a tribute to South Park's creators Stone and Parker.
You are welcome on my lawn.
LaVeyan Satanism has a God. Yourself.
I concur with most of their statements, I just don't see myself as a God. Plus, I don't think compassion with those weaker than you a cardinal sin. I consider it unfair to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Go to images.google.com and view all the depictions of the prophet Mohammad that you want. I image it's the same for images.yahoo.com, and so on.
A basic human right as defined by your laws. Please remember that no universal moral authority has been given to your 'rights' - they extend as far as your borders and as long as your government/judicial branch recognises them.
Other countries may consider it a basic human right to not have your religion offended in front of you - even if its not a written down 'right' per se - it may be a cultural hold-over (much like the US belief on property rights).
Whatever my or your beliefs may be - we have to allow others to hold their own, even if it directly contradicts ours.
LaVeyan Satanism has a God. Yourself.
That's right.
Also, "imaginary friends" != Yourself
Now get off my lawn!
Thought experiment. Inverse logic. Seeing the other guy's side. Putting ourselves in their shoes. Putting ourselves in our own shoes.
What would be a - natural - correlate from an Islamic perspective? Something natural, unoffensive, that would have western Catholicophile or Protestantophile social groups in an uproar ? I think idol-bashing is too strong. It's aggressive. Drawing a picture, in western society, isn't that aggressive. Caricatures can be. But they're usually an exageration of characteristics that impress the "artist". What would the Islamic equivalent be? I wonder.
Ok, so there's a religion that actually has a real God. I guess it all depends on your definition of "God". ;)
Or on the definition of "religion". Because I wouldn't consider this a religion at all.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When will the "Mix bacon into kosher meals" day be held?
Or how about "Nail the baby Jesus to the cross" day?
Or "Open-Air slaughterhouses and cow-barbecues in New Delhi"?
No, wait... I know. Free abortions at the St. Peter's Square in Rome! Televised!
Come on! We can do better than "drawing pictures".
It may or may not be time for a Mohammad gif that we can all put on our websites to promote free speech.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
These people can't get along with others. They hate people of other religions and atheists. If they could kill all of those people then they would turn Sunni vs. Shia. Then it would be who doesn't have a beard of the correct length, etc.. etc..
Put a dome over them until they grow the hell up.
A.C. for obvious reasons...
Islam gets riled up because you offend the God, who is supposed to be called Allh. Bear with my crippled judaeo-catholic habits, please - I strain to be fair.
Well, you may think it's fine but, the general impression is that, if God feels in the least way slighted, there's no telling who he's going to take it out on. The authors. The guys who represent them and ought to be responsible for them. The Believers, who did nothing, somehow letting them get away with it the World.... I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want even think about God being in the slightest angry at me or my collectivity. You know what he did in the past. It's a miracle he's been so complacent, lately. I'd up my Mosque-going, sharpen the ol' shafra and prime the avtomatika - just in case. Same as I would if some half-wit started running around my neighbourhood, dragging broken radioactive hospital equipment. And having other idiots do the same. It's not about them anymore. It's about our safety. Our families. Our communities. And humanity, in the end.
Fear. Fear. Taboo. Prejudice. And fear.
But it works.
Just like 911. The same logic. The same fear. About half of the victims were foreign workers. So "only" about 1200 "Americans" died directly as a result of the blasts and collapse. Too many of the dead were blue-collar. Not enough of them were the "downsize and layoff" executives gang. The death toll was a ridiculous fraction of that from yearly traffic accidents, shootings, water-poisoning related, denial-of-medical-treatment, all sorts of war-syndromes, (war itself), medical error, etc... Someone important recently quipped that putting Bin Laden as head of the EPA would have been less catastrophic than the BP incident.
But crippling taboo fear works. And the world pays for it.
As I am out there, in the world (the real world, may I add), I do somewhat resent all this idiocy.
Theocratic taboo is, unfortunately, rather intractable. Social and political superstition is only slightly less so. And those predisposed to rationality and decency are - unfortunately - rather at a disadvantage, both financial and in firepower. Let's hope they insist on the Pen being mightier than the ultra-sovreignity remote assassination and masacre drone.
I wonder what would happen if hackers started targetting Ppakastani websites - the biggest/most official ones, and put images of the prophet mohammed on them. I think that'd make for a nice protest of the actions towards this Facebook fan page, and a much more interesting article :)
Or perhaps if the hacking lasted long enough (perhaps over a few years) there would be desensitization to this issue, resulting in an overall moderation of the extremist attitudes of some people?
Nah, I doubt that. Heads would roll.
For bonus points, the images (carictures only here please) would be of him on his wedding night.
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
But it isn't really murder. It's only murder according to some Christians. What right is violated in destroying non-sentient human tissue? It makes sense to anyone rational that you must kill a sentient creature for an act to be considered murder. (See I can do that too.)
If a religion were to eventually decide that piercing your tongue or other body mods is murder, would it be OK for them to do the same to workers at piercing shops what radical Christian anti-abortionists do to abortion doctors? Would it be "not as bad" as the radical Muslims do to cartoonists?
Both the Muslims' "blasphemy" of depicting Mohammed and the Christians' "murder" of aborting fetuses are just "sins" of one religion or another that don't infringe anyone's rights. I don't see a difference. The Christians have just tarted-up the name of their sin in an attempt to make it seem relevant to the rest of the world.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What, no Spaghetti Monster? I am aghast at such heathen craven wretchedness! Shape up! May tendrils keelhaul ye'!
Can't believe in all the hundreds of comments I have just sorted through, about Mohaumad as a Pedofile, athiesm, and many others, not once did anyone ask for the link to the Facebook group.
I blame 4chan.
Not that I agree in ANY way that protesting by drawing muhammad is wrong.
In fact, I admire them in this respect.
"If you brought Catholics from a few centuries ago back to the future they would have lots of fun with car bombs too."
Quite a few car bombs went off in Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK not too many years ago, fired by Catholics, funded by US citizens. Funny how the funding from the USA dried up after people started trying to blow up parts of the USA as well. Americans funding the IRA didn't seem to be so acceptable after 9/11 for some reason.
(to be fair Protestants in Northern Ireland also set off a fair few bombs, and religion seemed to be an excuse rather than a reason for the violence in the majority of cases).
Fuck Religion! Your Religion and all the others too!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Everyone acts like this is so crazy. We have such free speech here in America we can't imagine a backlash from a simple mocking picture... How about make a "Draw a black man and label it N$&@$& day" on Facebook. See what happens. You will quickly find violence and public outcry, no religion needed.
Except that
- there is no murder
- killing someone over an imagined slight is murder
Any theological basis for killing someone else is inherently flawed, whatever the imagined crime. Humans have a right to live, religion violates that.
Shit, someone build a time machine, go back a few centuries and convince Mohamed's mother to have an abortion..
But its -very- easy to see why it could be considered murder.
A) The baby has 100% human DNA
B) If carried to term the baby will grow into someone like you and me
C) There are people who are considered to be living at the moment who have less signs of life than a fetus in the mother's womb
On the other hand, no Muslim is going to say Mohammed is still living and making comics of him is going to offend him.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I've heard those arguments. My personal view is that women have the right to defend themselves against parasitic organisms that put their hosts at physical and financial risk.
lol PTA , what dickheads
but I have a facebook group to go join. neener neener neener.
guys, islam is just a OS for the brain that helps you get more wet dreams.
I believe it's the Iranians who have nuclear weapons, and could theoretically trigger Armageddon, not the Palestinians.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well, that was fast. You're seriously going to compare drawing a few cartoons with signing orders for genocide?
Alright, first of all, examples of speech which is not protected are things like orders and threats. Actually telling someone to do something from a position of authority counts as an action, as does paying someone to do something (hiring a hit man). And while I'm not sure I agree with this part, death threats are not protected speech in the US.
The significant difference here is whether the speech has force and authority behind it. If you have a gun to my head, and you demand that I hand over my wallet, I can still refuse, but it would be stupid of me to do so. Make that demand without the force, and I can simply ignore you.
Even this doesn't immediately place all blame on Hitler. If the people he was speaking to were a bit more cautious and discriminating, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a lunatic. Indeed, the Nuremberg trials held that the Superior Orders defense is not sufficient -- in other words, while Hitler may have been guilty of giving orders, that doesn't mean every member of the Nazi party was simply, innocently following those orders.
Furthermore, Hitler had no power except that which people gave him. Had cooler heads prevailed early on, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a raving lunatic. It's also worth mentioning that there are still neo-Nazis in the US, and they're still allowed to freely express themselves, so long as it's merely expression -- rant all you want, but without an army to back it up, it's just ranting.
Let's tie this back to what I actually said:
No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to.
But Hitler had a lot more than mere words, didn't he? And he was doing a lot more than simply expressing himself -- he was giving orders and making threats, two things which are not considered protected speech.
Now, if Hitler was dismissed as a lunatic, and the Nazi party was never formed, does that make Hitler a good person? Of course not. The fact that I think certain speech should be protected does not mean I agree with that speech or think it's moral.
But that is the real difference here, isn't it? There may be many people in the US who think this "Draw Mohammed day" thing is immoral. The execs at Facebook itself might even think that. But no one is going to block that speech merely because they think it's immoral. Pakistan did.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Does anyone else think that the reaction of the Muslim community is bordering on the verge of worship? The level of outrage I've seen over this is one I would only reserve for the Deity in question.
So, that's how you feel about Americans. So, why again should I give a shit about offending you?
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.