Slashdot Mirror
Bangladesh Blocks Facebook Over Muhammad Cartoons
lbalbalba writes with a BBC story about Bangladesh following Pakistan in censoring Facebook. "Bangladesh has blocked access to Facebook after satirical images of the prophet Muhammad and the country's leaders were uploaded. One man has been arrested and charged with 'spreading malice and insulting the country's leaders' with the images. Officials said the ban was temporary and access to the site would be restored once the images were removed. It comes after Pakistan invoked a similar ban over 'blasphemous content.' ... Thousands of people joined anti-Facebook protests in Bangladesh on Friday demanding the site be blocked over the contest. A telecomm regulator there said, "Facebook will be re-opened once we erase the pages that contain the obnoxious images." And how do they propose to do that?
That's a bad idea as internet access has a serious western influence on these countries, for better or for worse.
People don't want all of the content that is on it. It's not just a group of techies, but people from all walks of life. If they thing that images of Muhammad are as bad a child porn, who is to stop them from blocking it? This isn't the old Internet. We aren't living in the wild west anymore. Not everyone's sense of ethics line up.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
An interesting thought experiment would be to imagine that Muslims must take an oath to renounce Islam(not having to choose another religion, just renouncing Islam) upon immigration to generic, prosperous Western countries. How many would give up a safe and comfortable lifestyle and a good education, for themselves and their families, for the sake of religious self-righteousness?
Another principle-related thought experiment: Would the number of abortions increase if men were not obligated to pay child support?
I don't think the "I signed a piece of paper" solution will do much good. Here's what I suggest:
Two independent DNA tests disproving paternity are absolute cause to end child support payments and refund any money paid. No more getting stuck paying for a kid you didn't provide DNA for.
Child support payments are no longer a check to be used for anything. The money goes on a debit card and all expenditures are recorded and audited. Spending on things not for the kids earns very harsh penalties. Payment amounts are to be adjusted every year and must provide a reasonable estimate of costs and be adjusted for the payer's income.
Remarriage triggers new assessment of child support payments, and payments are only to be made if the new marriage cannot fully support the children.
Custody of children is no longer to be automatically biased towards the mother. The court shall give a true and honest assessment of both parents' abilities and use that as a major factor in awarding custody.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Where are these, so I can "like" them?
That never happened. Christianity never learned anything, in fact they lost control as a result of not learning and adapting. They were thrown out of governments for good and lost the power to enforce their ways on the rest of us. Give Christianity back the power they had a in the dark ages and in a decade or two "peaceful" and "tolerant" Christians will be burning heathens on crosses in the name of their lord. If you have any doubts about that keep in mind how with the tiny bit of power left in hands of Vatican they systematically and on a global scale sexually abuse innocent children, silence the victims, protect the culprits and still consider themselves righteous. Then imagine what would happen if church had unlimited powers
The reason there are relatively few terrorist Christian militias or individual Christian terrorists is fear of harsh repercussions, specifically prosecution by the state. Bring back church to the state and their fears will vanish, then you'll see how hurting Christians' feelings, including you and I's innocent jokes about Jesus would result in "bodily harm".
tldr; It is Islamic states (or generally religion+state) that are the problem, not Islam per se. For more proof, I was in Iran during the original cartoon controversy. Not a single person knew or cared about the cartoons until state media started blasting them. Not a single grassroots protest happened, not a single gathering, until government sponsored protests (which most people have to attend) started.
Just for the record, some of us Westerners find Christians, Jews and Muslims all pretty annoying. Not all of us are Christians. 20% openly say they are not, many who say they are have never gone to church, thus they are on paper only.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Well, here's an interesting article on the subject... and here's some choice selections:
“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure” (Koran 61:4)
“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them [an infidel]. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (Koran 5:51)
“When ye meet the unbelievers smite at their necks” (Koran 47:4)
I guess you're right. Those are clearly all sentence fragments. The rest of that last sentence will obviously be "smite at their necks... with explanatory pamphlets, so that they are at eye level and clearly readable!"
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Are you saying that Utah a Mormon controlled state is currently being run by uncouth primitives?
Well, I wouldn't say uncouth, since as a rule Mormons are exceedingly polite, but otherwise, sure, why not?
Why is it assumed that just because I loathe certain practices of other countries and cultures, I must love all practices of my own? For the record, I don't like Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's witnesses, Scientologists, Catholics, Muslims, Judiasm, and oh, well, pretty much most religions (Oh, let's not forget the People's Temple). It's not that I find the concept of religion disquieting, it's that I find religions (or more accurately, sects of religions) that seek to force it's adherents to live carefully proscribed lifestyles abhorrent.
Now, I know the arguments, that people aren't forced to stay in the religions (mostly true, and certainly some do.), that they lead the lifestyles in order to get into heaven etc etc. Problem is though, that if you raise a child, and you, and a large part of the community around you, teach them their entire lives that playing a bongo drum is tantamount to murder, ods are quite good, they'll never play a bongo drum. To put is succinctly, indoctrination.
To me, that style of religion is infringing on one of the few things I believe to be a basic human right, self-determination.
If anyone has bothered to read this far, I'll note explicitly that with the exception of the People's Temple and to a lesser extent, scientology, I have no problems whatsoever with people who subscribe to a sect of a religion wherein what is preached is harmony, love and peace, being a generally good person and you'll be rewarded etc. (And yes, I realize that this is a inconsistency with my earlier statement of self-determination, so sue me.).
I'm sorry, I rambled a bit there, didn't I?
I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
A lot of people blame Islam, but really it's more a story of the region being in the dark ages still. They have kings who bring their vassals in line by threatening to kill them, or by killing them when that doesn't work. Look at the relationship between Syria and Lebanon for a clear example. They still have religious purges from time to time, similar to what Europe did in the 1500s.
In fact it wasn't that long ago we were dragging ourselves into world war over some misguided ideas about patriotism and the idea that war is 'fun.' In the middle east, they haven't gotten to the point where they realize it is ok to let people with different ideas live.
Qxe4
Only an idiot like you would consider someone/thing above criticism. Only an idiot like you would defend a thousands of years old fairy tail.
This would require fundamentalist Islam to move past the 12th century, which they stubbornly refuse to do. Its sad how Islamic nations once lead the world in innovation and creative thought and then went into a Dark Ages which they have yet to emerge from. When will Islam have their Renaissance?
Related: My parents have never gone to church, don't pray, and don't have a bible of any kind in the house. They consider themselves Christian.
If one state marries two people, they are married in all 50 states. That's the way it works. But if two males marry in a state where it's legal, is that legal in all other states? The general rules among the states laid out in federal and state law regarding marriages and contracts say "yes." As such, there has been a move to make sure that such marriages can't be recognized in any one state. Thus a pro-active move to explicitly ban gays from being married in that state, regardless of where they were married. I'd call that an attempt to ban gay marriage.
The funniest thing about it all is that it's the "conservatives" that want smaller government and want the government to stop telling their religions what they can and can't do who are wanting to have the government have more rules and have those rules apply to church marriages. But then, there are no liberals or conservatives in the US, just big government conservatives and bigger government conservatives. And no one can tell them apart, other than what they want to spend the most money on fastest.
Learn to love Alaska
..."marriage" is a sacred institution, meaning it is of religious value only.
Hello there -- ever actually been married? You really should try it sometime. You might learn something.
"Religious value" has very little to do with it -- a marriage is a contract, with legally binding economic and other consequences, such as:
-You agree to share your home and property/assets, and you may (depending on the jurisdiction) become liable for any debts your spouse incurs.
-You agree that any children born or adopted into your household are your joint responsibility.
-Your spouse gains the right to make medical and other decisions on your behalf, should you become incapacitated.
-Your spouse gains the right to inherit your benefits, such as pensions and insurance payouts.
-And so on.
(In many places, you don't necessarily have to participate in a ceremony, and it might be called something like "common-law marriage", "cohabitation", "de facto relationship", etc. In Sweden, it's called samboförhållande or "sambo" for short -- which has absolutely nothing to do with race, but is rather a contraction of samboende, meaning "same dwelling". But in all such cases, the intent and effects are generally the same as with "marriage".)
These are the sorts of practical issues that gays and others prohibited from marrying are complaining about: social and legal recognition as a unit.
Such a unit is sometimes referred to in the vernacular as a family.
This has absolutely nothing to do with an (in)ability to conform to the dicta of some Imaginary Dude Upstairs.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.