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?

Comments

Here's a better idea

[earthforce_1]

Let's totally unplug all backwards theocracies from the internet.

Re:Here's a better idea

[santax]

But but but... I like to be able to contact my American and European friends you empathy lacking clod!

Re:Here's a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bad idea as internet access has a serious western influence on these countries, for better or for worse.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Ethanol-fueled]

Why? I think it would do more to hurt their cause if we let them linger. The more the civilized world sees them being trolled by simple drawings, the more ammo they give us to ridicule them and laugh at their infantile, Donald Duck-esque temper tantrums. Muslim immigrants, particularly those in Western countries, are biting the hands that feed them.

Additionally, I get a chuckle from seeing so many Muslim groups on Facebook, a company started and headed by a Jewish man(and an evil one at that).

Re:Here's a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bad idea as internet access has a serious western influence on these countries, for better or for worse.

Every time I see a story like this it makes me want to find the part of my state with the highest Islamic population and then decorate the streets so they cannot walk ten feet without seeing a cartoon making fun of Mohammed. It would be a way to say "welcome to the ridicule and derision Christians and Jews and others are expected to put up with." Psychologists call this "systematic desensitization" when it's used for phobias and other irational fears. In the case of Islam everyone would be better off for it. It would absolutely not be an attack against Islam. It would merely establish parity between Islam and all other major religions.

It's time for Islam to learn what Christianity learned hundreds of years ago. Not everyone is going to adhere to your religion and fighting crusades, jihads, or holding inquisitions won't change that and is not the correct solution. All that does is convince every non-adherant that you're really a bunch of barbarians who use force because you don't actually believe in your faith or the power of its message. If your goal is to spread your religion, this is extremely counter-productive and will produce unyielding resistance to it. Realistically, every time an Islamic terrorist makes something go "ka-boom" do you think the rest of us say "wow, that Islam sure has some great points, I better convert today!" or do you think we say "yup, what a bunch of primitive savages." It does not help that the more moderate Islamic leaders rarely or never condemn the murderous actions of their extremist brethren. It's as though they are afraid to, or they agree with the extremists, and either case means that the extremist minority gets to dictate the entire course of Islam. Again, that's not a selling point if you want to win converts.

For all religious people, Islamic or not, here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will. If others do things that you consider blasphemous, say a quiet prayer for them in your own privacy wishing that they come to understand things as you do. If they don't, consider it the will of an all-knowing and all-powerful God and leave those people the hell alone. If they do, celebrate that your prayers had an effect. I know that has the serious drawback of not giving you an excuse to force others to behave as you think they should, but you can get over that.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Bugamn]

Are you a college student?

Re:Here's a better idea

[matunos]

No need. They are unplugging themselves.

Re:Here's a better idea

[snowgirl]

Ever notice how close the word empathy is to pathetic?

It's like they share a common root. Like passage and impasse.

Re:Here's a better idea

[masmullin]

I find your lack of faith.... disturbing!

Re:Here's a better idea

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D]

So we punish the citizens for the crimes of their corrupt leaders? Better would be to subvert their leaders and try to give them proper access anyway.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Christians and Jews

What? If you do something they don't like in the wrong part of the US or Jerusalem expect a lynch mob to be chasing you.

Re:Here's a better idea

[_Sprocket_]

Let's totally unplug all backwards theocracies from the internet.

Or we could ignore them and their foolishness.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Wyatt Earp]

There have only been three racial lynchings in the US since 1968 and what, one gay lynching?

So really don't expect a lynching in the US ever.

Lynchings are more common in the Palestinian Authority with hate crimes on homosexuals and "collaborators" than Israel. In Jerusalem the danger is rock throwing groups for violators of the sabbath.

Re:Here's a better idea

[PopeRatzo]

That's a bad idea as internet access has a serious western influence on these countries, for better or for worse.

Not if they're going to block anything that might offend their backward beliefs. And it's not a "western" influence that the internet brings, but an influence that is dangerous for any society, East or West, that seeks to maintain control over the population. At least until corporations have locked down the last dingy corner of the Internet, which might be sooner than you think.

But let's face it: backward religious beliefs that exploit human desire for meaning are poisoning societies everywhere. Not that mysticism or faith in the supernatural are themselves poisonous, but the minute such beliefs become organized, they are co-opted by people who would pervert them for political purposes.

Pictures of Mohamed? The leaders of Bangladesh are happy enough to use the Internet to fuel their explosion in high-tech industries and end-user support facilities, but they believe they can keep out anything that's "offensive" to their culture. Little do they know that they're way too late. I'm willing to bet that the first thing a Bangladeshi teenager does when first encountering the Internet is to look up pictures of Mohamed. Right after they look up 2 girls, 1 cup and Hentai.

Re:Here's a better idea

[elucido]

If they weren't terrorists before, if you ridicule them you are certainly going to push them in that direction. What is the result if you ridicule the kid in school who wears the funny hat?

Re:Here's a better idea

[Pharmboy]

here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will.

That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter. The other 10% are just annoying as hell, but are not likely to stone you or blow themselves up. Muslim, however, seem to be a different thing altogether.

If you think something is a sin, (alcohol, for instance) why can't Muslims simply choose to not drink alcohol and leave everyone else alone? The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim. Parts of the Koran specifically say to convert or kill infidels, although other parts say to respect other's beliefs and leave them alone. While most would likely prefer to convert the infidels with words, and only a minority with force, the problem is that they feel they must convert us at all. The idea of "live and let live" just isn't in their vocabulary.

It is going to take something big to see change or a large amount of time, and frankly, I don't think the rest of the world is going to be patient enough to allow a large amount of time.

Re:Here's a better idea

[couchslug]

Mockery is the best response to religion. Let them unplug themselves.

Re:Here's a better idea

[css-hack]

Indeed. They both stem from the Greek "pathos", which means, roughly, emotional suffering in response to something.

So... I guess I don't see your point.

Re:Here's a better idea

[TangoMargarine]

And you might have noticed he didn't say anything about racial lynching. Race != Religion/Morality.

Re:Here's a better idea

[sycodon]

Google says: Information No results found for "lynchings due to religion".

Re:Here's a better idea

[v1]

it makes me want to find the part of my state with the highest Islamic population and then decorate the streets

I was thinking the same thing, but the problem here is twofold. (1) Their religion has a very deep-seeded intolerance for making fun of their god. Or even trying to draw his face for that matter. Couple that with (2) it's as you stated, a theocracy, and that just works as a multiplier because people's outdated intolerant behavior is fully endorsed, supported, and practiced by the state.

I don't really like to call them "nutcases", but religious zealots really do give me the impression of incurably unreasonable people, (an unfortunate chunk of which are extremists) and when they're running the government and the press at the same time, it's almost a complete waste of time to try to reason with them or do anything about it. Not only are they organized, but they're in charge too. Change must come from within. And "change" is universally considered "the enemy" by theocracies, so all I'm saying is don't expect any of this to disappear anytime soon.

All of these outdated laws are ostensibly made to protect them from us, the heathens. It's like "think of the children", but the ENTIRE COUNTRY is "the children". They're all in it together in a grand party of stagnancy and intolerance, and they like it. All you can really do is try to ignore them and hope they eventually either go away or grow up.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Yvanhoe]

Okay, enough with these sith-mocking lines and parodies ! I say we disconnect slashdot and youtube until they have been approved by a sith-master. Let's force-choke these blasphemous heathens out of our tubes.

Re:Here's a better idea

[MrNaz]

Yea we should undermine leaders we disagree with. We could even engage in military action. We could call it a "War For Freedom"or something cool like that. We already did it in South America when they were all like communist and stuff, we freed them from evil communists and see how now they all love us.

Re:Here's a better idea

[mrsquid0]

Like Kansas and Texas?

Re:Here's a better idea

[Wyatt Earp]

Thats because there have been no religious lynchings in the United States or Israel in the modern era.

Sure there have been some abortion killings, but those weren't lynchings and the victim set is small (abortion doctors).

Race and religion were intertwined in the pre-Civil Rights era lynchings, but the main motivator was race.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Pharmboy]

I'm certainly not a scholar when it comes to the Koran, but I have read it more than once.

""Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)"

"Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers" "Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day.... Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! (Sura 9:5,29,41).

We can argue semantics, but that seems to support my claims pretty clearly.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re:Here's a better idea

[biryokumaru]

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!"

Re:Here's a better idea

[blackraven14250]

In Jerusalem the danger is rock throwing groups for violators of the sabbath.

....aren't Jews not supposed to do any work, like, you know, picking up and throwing rocks, on the Sabbath?

Re:Here's a better idea

[blackraven14250]

I would wager that you didn't translate it yourself, which means there's a chance (however small) that the translation is wrong or purposefully changed.

Re:Here's a better idea

[biryokumaru]

Yes. The whole "Islamic Terrorist" idea is obviously a conspiracy on the part of western translators. Good eye!

Re:Here's a better idea

[Low Ranked Craig]

Now what? Are they going to drop the ban hammer on /. too?

Re:Here's a better idea

[boxwood]

LOL

On one hand the muslims are bad for trying to make people respect their beliefs. You go on to say how its bad to try to enforce beliefs on others.

Next you say you want to force muslims to behave the way you want them to behave. You don't think its right to believe that cartoons of a prophet is blasphemous. So you're going to *force* those "primitive" muslims to look at cartoons of their prophet. Desensitize them so that they believe the same things you do.

The crusader mentality isn't dead. Its alive and well in you, buddy.

Re:Here's a better idea

[WillDraven]

According to this over 50 LBGT's under the age of 30 have been killed in the USA between 1997 and 2007.

Don't think we're all one happy family yet. Prejudice still exists in America.

Re:Here's a better idea

[belmolis]

No, no, no! For two reasons. First, it's bad for the minority of people in those countries who do not subscribe to the mediaeval theocratic line. For them, the internet is often the major connection to the outside world. Second, even with censorship, and even with skepticism of what unbelievers say, the internet does have an influence in these countries. We should attempt to maximize internet access and support mechanisms for bypassing censorship and preserving anonymity.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Wyatt Earp]

The folks that do the stoning are ultra-orthodox, I'm not sure how they justify it under Jewish Law, I don't run in those circles.

Re:Here's a better idea

[hnangelo]

My Christian Egyptian friend tends to disagree with you. Whether they are not killed, they are certainly not free to follow all their beliefs. (but perhaps that is the same as peace to you?) As an atheist, I consider religion to be retrograde in most cases and, as such, barbaric indeed in the case of extremists. Sadly Muslims seem to be the majority in the portion of religious extremists and intolerant people.

Re:Here's a better idea

[mooingyak]

Look though history, the only time Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully together was under a Muslim government.

The Mongols were actually pretty good about keeping their diverse religious groups in harmony. They had those three and some others in fairly large numbers.

Re:Here's a better idea

[RoFLKOPTr]

Psychologists call this "systematic desensitization" when it's used for phobias and other irational fears.

And goatse.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Peach Rings]

It's more like:
What is the result when there's a ridiculous bully who talks big and roughs everyone up, and you laugh in his face defusing his power?

Re:Here's a better idea

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Wyatt Earp]

According to that there is no tracking of it so we don't know if thats why they were killed.

"The annual FBI Hate Crimes Statistics report documents assaults motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability. Yet, it does not track murders based on victim's gender identity or expression. If it did, the murders in this category would outweigh every other category except race."

How do they know that if it's not tracked that way?

Besides, I doubt theres a lynching in there which is the focus of this discussion.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Exactly. Fuck Muhammad dead in his ass. Religion is dumb.

I'm tired of these fucking muslim babies who cant take a joke, or criticism. Go fuck yourself. Enough.

We bend over backwards for these clowns, because we're afraid they'll blow up a building. I'm sorry but, we should not bend over backwards these people.

Either they join us in modern society, or they can keep themselves out of it. Just dont expect us to give a damn.

Re:Here's a better idea

[kasimbaba]

I'm certainly not a scholar when it comes to the Koran, but I have read it more than once.

""Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)"

This is not from the Quran, so it's irrelevant to the question.

"Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers"

So what? It's talking about life in the hereafter, nothing about killing infidels.

"Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.

Like the GP said, quote whole phrases! You're only quoting less than half of 9:5, which takes the meaning totally out of context.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day....

Again, incomplete and incorrect translation.

Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah!

Totally mistranslated.

(Sura 9:5,29,41).

We can argue semantics, but that seems to support my claims pretty clearly.

You're supporting your claims with lies.

Re:Here's a better idea

[kasimbaba]

When ye meet the unbelievers smite at their necks” (Koran 47:4)

Here's the whole translation of Quran 47:4:

" Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (Is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) In order to test you, some with others. but those who are slain In the way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

- Yusuf Ali translation (emphasis mine).

The key phrases that you conveniently omit was, "until the war lays down its burdens." As you can see, the phrase deals with conduct during a war. It's normal to kill people in a war, is it not? The phrases clearly tells us to stop killing once the war stops.

Re:Here's a better idea

[CAIMLAS]

. Not everyone is going to adhere to your religion and fighting crusades, jihads, or holding inquisitions won't change that and is not the correct solution.

And if they (Muslims) win their jihads?

HINT: the world's Islamic population is increasing substantially, and not solely through birth. Jihad is alive and well in many (most) parts of the world. Social subversion goes a long way towards reaching one's goals when the status quo is one of accepting others' beliefs: it doesn't take much pressure to flip the coin.

Re:Here's a better idea

[CAIMLAS]

The phrase you are looking for which describes this Islamic belief is "Wahabbi Islam". It is the world's largest growing belief system - coming to a city near you, soon enough. :-/

Re:Here's a better idea

[biryokumaru]

These aren't my quotes or omissions, these are from the article.

That said, it would seem that there are consistent themes regarding brutal slaughter of unbelievers throughout the text. I don't think that any more evidence should be needed than the many, many people who seem to devote their lives toward that end.

Some interpret as you have, that killing people during war is okay. Which is not an unreasonable view. Some seem to interpret that the war is not over until you're done with the killing. That seems to be the major issue.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam doesn't revoke any one's fundamental rights by asking them not to draw pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), you can still draw whatever you want, just leave him alone. He is our Prophet and we love him more than any one else and we feel it as an insult if somebody makes fun of him. Wouldn't everybody feel the same way if somebody draws an insulting picture of his/her parents? For Muslims our Prophet is more than our parents.

People in the name of Islam have threatened murder against:

1> The creators of South Park, and Comedy Central, who showed a picture of some unknown person (who turned out to be Santa Claus) inside a bear costume, while insinuating that it was Mohammad in the costume

2> Some people who drew pictures of various anthropomorphic things like smiling tea kettles and said those were pictures of Mohammad.

3> The creator and the publisher of a political cartoon depicting Mohammad with a bomb hidden in his headdress.

Then there's the stick figure thing.

The problem here is that Western sensibilities have discovered something completely irrational. It appears that you could draw a square on a piece of paper, write "this is Mohammad" next to it, and someone would want to kill you because of it. We find it abhorrent that people could think in such a way. We get that Muslims are offended by images of Mohammad. But when a picture of ANYTHING AT ALL can be taken as a picture of Mohammad, then we see a way of thinking that is irrational, whose adherents seem to put extra effort into finding things to be offended about.

To our way of thinking, our basic civil rights have a very clear line that cannot be crossed: my right to throw a punch ends at your nose. Or, my personal liberties should be unlimited so long as they do not cause anyone else harm.

Now, most of us were also taught another basic belief, in the saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." We are taught that words are harmless, and that violent retaliation against mere insults is unconscionable.

Now, it seems to be true that fundamentalists of all faiths have a basic problem in that all rules must be absolute. There can be no middle ground.

So we are presented with a situation where a large population of people take a rule to such an absolute extreme that they threaten murder over words, thoughts, and drawings. We feel that we have to test the boundaries of this irrationality. If a drawing of a man in a turban can be a drawing of Mohammad, then what about a drawing of a person in a bear costume? A stick figure? A smiling teacup?

Yes, we are deliberately trying to give offense. On one level, we believe such irrationality deserves it; if your buttons are that easily pushed then we believe the problem is YOURS. We learn to have thick skins. "I am rubber, you are glue, words bounce off me and stick to you." We want you to be rational. We are willing to respect your boundaries, but only IF you are willing to meet us in the middle somewhere. We want you to agree that a stick figure named Mohammad is not actually an image of Mohammed and to not take offense over it. We want to be able to represent Mohammad in political cartoons, not to offend Muslims, but as a way to talk about the issues that affect us today.

A threat of murder over thoughts is, to us, a completely disproportionate response. Everyone should learn to be offended without having to lash out over it. Expecting no one to ever give offense is just ridiculous. To us, these are things we learned before we were nine years old. It's just amazing that grown adults in other parts of the world act how we think toddlers act. Yes, in our world, creeps like the W'boro Church can symbolically urinate on the grave of a hero -- but the chance of a suicide bombing or a kidnapping or a straight up murder over it are very very small. "While I may not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Re:Here's a better idea

[corbettw]

Only 50? I find that shocking. It would mean that LGBTs are vastly underrepresented in cases of murder than the general population. I think we should all do our duty and go out and kill on LGBT person today, to help tip the scales back to average.

Re:Here's a better idea

[EdIII]

EdIII: The more you tighten your grip, Yvanhoe, the more boards will slip through your fingers.

Yvanhoe: Not after we demonstrate the power we have over the tubes... In a way, you have determined the choice of the board that'll be destroyed first. Since you are reluctant to provide us with the URL of the Rebel base, I have chosen to test our destructive power... on your homepage... Slashdot....

EdIII: Nooo!!! Slashdot is peaceful. We have no trolls here! Well, that's not true.. there are a lot of assholes and brain dead moderators... and Idle.. but they are moderated down! Moderated Down!!

Yvanhoe: You would prefer another target? A military target? Then provide the URL!

EdIII: *Sniff*

Yvanhoe: I grow tired of asking this. So it'll be the last time. Where is the Rebel board?

EdIII (softly): 4Chan. They're on 4Chan.

Yvanhoe: There. You see. You could be reasonable... Continue with the operation! You may send the command sequences to the BotNet when ready..

EdIII: What!?

Yvanhoe: You're far too trusting. 4Chan is too resilient (and a hive a wretched Anonymous Cowards) to be an effective demonstration. But don't worry. We will deal with 4Chan soon enough.

EdIII: No!

****

CowboyNeal: I feel a great disturbance in the tubes... as if millions of users suddenly cried out in terror or were moderated out of existence. I fear something terrible has happened....

****

P.S - I am slightly disturbed played the part of Princess Leia... but I do feel strangely more free now

Re:Here's a better idea

[hedwards]

Ultimately as backwards as it is to block Facebook over that, over all you'd have to block a huge portion of the internet before you'd be largely free of the liberalizing effect it tends to have on societies. Even innocuous things like exposure to Kwanzaa and garden gnomes have an impact.

Re:Here's a better idea

[LingNoi]

Look though history, the only time Muslims, Christians and Jews lived peacefully together was under a Muslim government.

You seem to be living in la la land.

A Malaysian state court sentenced a Muslim woman to six strokes of the cane after she was caught drinking beer in a hotel in the Malaysian state of Pahang.

In Malaysia (a muslim government) your ID card not only has your religion on it, you're not allowed to change your ID card from being muslim to another religion.

Other muslim governments such as Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan aren't exactly shining beacons of hope either. You have muslims killing teachers in the south of Thailand. Muslims shooting rockets over the borders in Gaza. Muslims bombing underground trains in England. Muslims flying planes into buildings in the US.

I'm an atheist myself however I have a special hate for muslims. They want nothing but to control and make people suffer while pretending to be all about peace and love. Their religion is a disease that infects the minds of reasonable people the world over.

Re:Here's a better idea

[LingNoi]

Only an idiot like you would ever consider it a civilised action to make fun of people that are held in great esteem

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.

Re:Here's a better idea

[pete6677]

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?

Re:Here's a better idea

[c6gunner]

....aren't Jews not supposed to do any work, like, you know, picking up and throwing rocks, on the Sabbath?

Ah, but stoning is ok, because it falls under the category of "god's work".

Re:Here's a better idea

[Forethought]

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.

Re:Here's a better idea

[c6gunner]

These guys need to shut the hell up and stop being so critical of every semi-religious/spiritual statement people make.

Why?

Re:Here's a better idea

[firewood]

According to this over 50 LBGT's under the age of 30 have been killed in the USA between 1997 and 2007.

And how does that compare to the number of murders of protestant european-descent heterosexual white males over the age of 30 during the same time period? What would be the "fair" non-prejudicial ratio?

Re:Here's a better idea

[Sperbels]

For the record: as a non-Christian (in the 'organized religion' sense), non-Jewish believer-in-god, I sure find atheists annoying as hell. These guys need to shut the hell up and stop being so critical of every semi-religious/spiritual statement people make.

For the record: as an atheist who doesn't go around criticizing religion, I sure find people who believe all atheists are Richard-Dawkins-wannabes annoying as hell. You people turned atheism into a dirty word. So much so that most atheists just call themselves agnostic to avoid being confused with an anti-theist.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Alinabi]

But then how will I keep in touch my friends in Alabama, Texas or Utah

Re:Here's a better idea

[LingNoi]

Islam doesn't revoke any one's fundamental rights by asking them not to draw pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), you can still draw whatever you want, just leave him alone.

You really need to grow the fuck up and realise that the only reason this draw muhammad competition exists is because muslims have been trying to censor western countries. Really, I don't understand how muslims can get offended over such ridiculous pictures.

Muslims the world over could have just laughed it off and focused your energies towards helping others and being a good examples. Instead you all fell for the bait and proved what de-evolved monkeys you really are.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Arancaytar]

Looks like they'll do the job for us.

Those drawings seem to be the penicillin against the virus of fanaticism.

Re:Here's a better idea

[blackraven14250]

God has thunderbolts and floods; he doesn't need the help of some people throwing rocks. The choice to throw is from their free will.

Re:Here's a better idea

[TangoMargarine]

Hey, don't blame me; it's not my analogy.

Re:Here's a better idea

[the_womble]

To be fair, its not just Muslims: I live in a country where you can go to jail for insulting the Buddha.

Its not just religions either: lots of countries have laws against insulting the flag or president, or whatever.

The basic conflict is over a "right not to be offended" vs a right to free speech. Unfortunately things seem to be drifting (in the West as well) towards peace is more important: we can all have a "harmonious society".

Re:Here's a better idea

[SEWilco]

[insert deus ex machina]

Re:Here's a better idea

[Merls the Sneaky]

Keep your/their religious statements off my front porch and I will stfu. ESPECIALLY on my weekend mornings!

Re:Here's a better idea

[Cassius Corodes]

This isn't about ridicule just for fun. This is one group of people demanding special treatment (i.e. no drawing of Muhammad etc.) on the basis of their beliefs and threatening (and carrying out - so its not an empty threat) violence against any who dont give them this special treatment. This is simply not acceptable. And this ridicule serves as a way of showing that we are united in this perspective. If this offends someone more than murdering someone in the street then they have their priorities way wrong and I dont have much sympathy for them.

TL;DR: We aren't the students picking on the weird kid, we are the students uniting against a bully who wants to do things his way.

Re:Here's a better idea

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

FTFS:

Thousands of people joined anti-Facebook protests in Bangladesh on Friday demanding the site be blocked over the contest.

I don't think it's just the leaders who are pushing for this (assuming the leaders are pushing for this at all).

Re:Here's a better idea

[Jafafa Hots]

...backwards theocracies...

You have a redundancy there.

Re:Here's a better idea

[twidarkling]

Hardly the same. If their beliefs are that others should act as they act, that needs must be curtailed. One's freedoms should not unreasonably impact others'. His method might not be the best to achieve that curtailing (in fact, it's terrible), but it's not anywhere near the level of the Muslims who would threaten anyone making an image of Mohammed. The fact that you think they ARE on the same level doesn't paint you in a very favourable light.

Pray tell, do you also find bludgeoning a man unconscious to stop him murdering someone to be as bad as that man murdering someone?

Re:Here's a better idea

[mallydobb]

If you can read Arabic, the Quran's language is much harsher and reflects certain ideas and concepts as less "enlightened" or tolerant. Yusuf Ali's translation may be one of the most common English versions but it doesn't accurately translate all the concepts and words of faith from the Arabic. I see Ali's version more as an apologists take on the Quran and Islam...besides, aren't the only proper readings of the Quran done in Arabic?

Using 47:4 as an example, it *does* seem to be talking about the general idea of war (in Arabic and English). The problem you get into here is how to interpret the concept of war. Is the US at war with Islam? If so then any act of retaliation (terrorism, kidnappings, etc) done by fringe/extremist groups could be done in the name of that verse.

Re:Here's a better idea

[twidarkling]

This might be the most awesome thing I've read today. A pity I've used my mod points.

Re:Here's a better idea

[RussR42]

"Somebody set up them the bomb. They have no chance to survive and will make their time!"

-Cats

Re:Here's a better idea

[BluBrick]

As you are a Muslim familiar with the Qur'an, please tell us about the principle of al Taqiyya and why, in the face of that principle, any non-Muslim should believe anything a Muslim says about his (or her) faith.

For the benefit of other non-Muslims like myself, al Taqiyya is the principle under which a Muslim may lie (conceal or disguise ideas, beliefs, opinions and strategies) in order to protect himself or the Islamic faith. That's right folks, even the most devout of Muslims may exhibit behaviour which is otherwise considered sinful, as long as it is done under the all-encompassing cloak of al Taqiyya.

Or have I misunderstood al Taqiyya? And if I your answer is yes, how do I know you are not invoking al Taqiyya in your answer?

Re:Here's a better idea

[Meski]

Sigh. I can only think of the scene from "Life of Brian"

Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Curunir_wolf]

How do you explain these verses, then. Just claim they are "mistranslated" - without offering any "accurate" translation that disputes the meaning?

"5.18" : And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, then take your sword and separate his head from him, for the heads of the Jews and the Christians are to be praised only when they are removed from their bodies.

"5.73" : Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. Remove from them their heads, therefore, and place thy excrement in its place.

"9.30" : And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; and castrate them, and placeth their testicles within their mouths, and remove their hands and get them into the place where they defecate.

"5.33" : The punishment of those who depict Allah and His apostle in drawing or clay and strive to make mischief and mock them in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

"8.39" : And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely kill them.

"9.5" : Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush,then if they repent kill them anyway. Kill them, behead them, castrate them, cripple them, burn their buildings and rape their women.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Re:Here's a better idea

[kdemetter]

Well , literaly translated : pathos means passion or suffering .

empathy means : in passion / in suffering

pathetic means : subject to feeling, capable of feeling, impassioned

So the origin of the word is indeed very similar.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Curunir_wolf]

That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter.

Hah, that's a bit of an overestimate. Gay marriage legislation anyone?

I guess you would prefer the Muslim government option, where they don't have gay people at all?

Re:Here's a better idea

[cyp43r]

Of course, you should also do this to the Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and every other religion hotspots. While Jewish people do have to deal with a lot of ridicule and derision (chiefly from Christians, don't you know), Christians do not. In modern western society they are the chief reason we do not hold religious beliefs up to the same standard as our non-religious beliefs. While many say that this should apply to all religion (and many probably do believe this) a significant percentage do not, and take this as carte blanche to trash any and every other religion and not have to take any kind of criticism themselves. Christianity didn't learn a damned thing hundreds of years ago. Christianity failed to suppress it and has just recently started to accept this now. Crusades were a Christian holy war - and we lost all but the first which is probably a contributing factor to the lack of crusades today. In many ways modern Christians act very similar to Muslims - chiefly intolerance of other ways of thinking and behaving. The Islam faith mandating the wearing of burqa's is just as bad as forbidding Muslims to wearing them (as France has done). Another culture thinks us primitive savages for one thing and we see them the same way for another. It's not a valid way of thinking. We have our own 'extremists' and 'terrorists' that do very similar things for reasons poor or valid.

Re:Here's a better idea

[shutdown -p now]

Frankly, I don't care if it is in the Qu'ran or not. The matter of the fact is that even self-proclaimed moderate Muslims in the West, when questioned, admit that death is the right and proper punishment for apostasy. So that interpretation is mainstream.

Re:Here's a better idea

[shutdown -p now]

What a load of bullshit!! When your enlightened western nations started prosecuted Jews they fled to Muslim countries like Turkey where they were allowed to live in piece ... uslims lived in piece with Jews/Christians and other religions for more then a thousand years in Egypt. If I remember correctly it was the crusaders and the inquisition who had a problem with people with other religions.

True, but - this was, what, 700 years ago?

And we're talking about here and now. Yes, Islamic civilization was great in its heyday, and definitely more tolerant than most kingdoms of the Christendom back then. But today - it's not Christians who are beheading people in the name of their God, and video-taping it to use as propaganda.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Kirijini]

I think we should all do our duty and go out and kill on LGBT person today, to help tip the scales back to average

Why is this modded funny?

The GP's link indicated that "more than 50 young people aged 30 and under were murdered violently by assailants who targeted them because they did not fit stereotypes for masculinity or femininity... [LGBT is] a unique vulnerability at the intersection of age, race, and gender nonconformity that makes a fatal assault exponentially more likely."

Parent post pretends that "only 50" LGBT people were murdered in the past 10 years. That's not at all what the link suggested. 50 people were targeted and murdered because of their identity. The parent post actually advocates (sarcastically*) targeting and murdering more LGBT people because "only 50" murders is not enough.

Whats funny about that?

* I assume the parent was just being extreme for the ironic humor. whatever. I'm not upset at the parent - I'm upset at the mods for affirmatively recommending the post as funny.

Re:Here's a better idea

[shutdown -p now]

Why would Muslims have to be desensitized? its not a phobia to desensitize, it is in fact a very important Islamic principle : that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shouldn't be given a pictorial representation. Its just done in order to protect another major principle of Islam - No Idol worship.

We are perfectly fine with Muslims adhering to their own principles and not drawing pictures of their prophet. But why do they insist on applying principles of their religion to us, when we are not its adherents?

What you suggest will definitely be an attack against Islam when its done knowingly that doing so violates one of islam's basic principles.

In civilized world, religions are not immune to verbal or polemical attacks on themselves, or on whatever they represent as holy. We've had this settled with Christianity a long time ago. See Léo Taxil and "Piss Christ" for a few examples of what religions are subjected in the West.

I don't know whether Christianity is tolerant with insulting their Prophets but Islam definitely prohibit that.

Christianity is not tolerant of that, either, and they are free to express that fact - verbally, just as their opponents expressed the insult in the first place. Of course, in practice, most people just ignore them when they do so.

But why don't Muslims deserve to have such sentiments towards our Prophet(PBUH)?

No-one deserves a right not to be offended. It is simply not practical - people are offended by all kinds of things. In some cases, people are offended by lack of some things. I'd imagine that some Christian evangelicals are extremely offended by the fact that you do not accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. Luckily, you can tell them to STFU and GTFO - but with that freedom also comes one for me to tell you to do the same when you get all riled up about some childish cartoons.

Islam doesn't revoke any one's fundamental rights by asking them not to draw pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), you can still draw whatever you want, just leave him alone.

Sure it does - we call it "freedom of speech and expression". If you can't say something, then your speech is no longer free, now is it?

Wouldn't everybody feel the same way if somebody draws an insulting picture of his/her parents?

I'd be pretty offended, for sure, but I wouldn't go around threatening to cut people's heads off over that kind of thing - much less actually carrying out the threat. Or, say, calling to nuke the infidels.

Did you say this for your own selves? Please don't coerce us to accept what you find okay according to your beliefs or principles.

You're free not to accept things. However, in our society, people are free to express all kinds of opinions, no matter how offensive. This also includes your right to express your non-acceptance. However, when it goes from merely expression one's opinion, to direct threats to one's life - threats that we now know to not be bluffs, after what happened to e.g. Theo van Gogh - it crosses the border of what our society is willing to tolerate.

Re:Here's a better idea

[kasimbaba]

How do you explain these verses, then. Just claim they are "mistranslated" - without offering any "accurate" translation that disputes the meaning?

"5.18" : And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, then take your sword and separate his head from him, for the heads of the Jews and the Christians are to be praised only when they are removed from their bodies.

Your post is a lot of bullshit.

The translation of Quran 5:18 is:

(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and His beloved." say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men He hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

I won't bother correcting the rest of your worthless comment.

Re:Here's a better idea

[shutdown -p now]

Ever heard the terms "Islamic republic" and "Islamic democracy"?

They aren't quite the same as the mockery that is communist "people's republic". They are true republics and true democracies - democracies, in which the mob chants, "kill the apostate!".

Re:Here's a better idea

[Cassius Corodes]

Don't start this equivalency bullshit - we are giving them teapots calming to be depictions of Muhammad, in response to threats of violence. If western civilisation falls, it will be because its people lacked either a spine or a brain to defend its core ideals.

Re:Here's a better idea

[kasimbaba]

Yeah, so you say. I don't have any reason to believe you.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Securityemo]

And let them suffer out of our sight? Let the daughters of muslims be oppressed, hung slowly and painfully from a crane because they have been unfaithful/raped? And because the law states that non-virgins cannot have the death penalty, they are raped the night before? (Iran, and this is not a troll. Nono. They actually *do* this). I have a better proposal: let's "oppress", manipulate, and (when appropriate) murder key leaders of particularly vehement examples. The kind of behaviour these countries engage in is simply unforgivable in my opinion. People who do these kinds of things should be burned alive, over the course of several days. Starting with the genitals. They are less than livestock; I would cannibalize them just to spite their religion.

Re:Here's a better idea

[elucido]

It's more like:
What is the result when there's a ridiculous bully who talks big and roughs everyone up, and you laugh in his face defusing his power?

That NEVER works. First of all Islam itself is not the bully. The religion is the anti-bully. The bully is the fundamentalist militant islam and the states that back it. You cannot beat this state funded militant islam by ridicule because they'll take your ridicule and use it to brainwash their followers even more.

We are dealing with cults here. You cannot beat a cult by ridicule. The result of constant ridicule is that you'll make some of the members suicidal. Those suicidal members will be ready to die killing you because you ridiculed the prophet and the religion they live for.

Basically if you diminish islam you will be diminishing the reason some of these people have to live. You have to understand that some of them are going to be willing to die for islam and no amount of ridicule is going to change that. The better approach is to modernize islam in the ways and pace they can accept and then deal with the few who don't want to modernize in a more targeted sophisticated way.

But to publically ridicule is about as stupid as ridiculing a potential school shooting. You know the kid is unstable, you know he might have access to a gun, but you insist on ridiculing him every day until he can't take it?

Re:Here's a better idea

[elucido]

This isn't about ridicule just for fun. This is one group of people demanding special treatment (i.e. no drawing of Muhammad etc.) on the basis of their beliefs and threatening (and carrying out - so its not an empty threat) violence against any who dont give them this special treatment. This is simply not acceptable. And this ridicule serves as a way of showing that we are united in this perspective. If this offends someone more than murdering someone in the street then they have their priorities way wrong and I dont have much sympathy for them.

TL;DR: We aren't the students picking on the weird kid, we are the students uniting against a bully who wants to do things his way.

Violence is unacceptable. Crime is unacceptable. But religious freedom is a human right. They have a taboo and it involves images of Muhammad. Out of respect for the peaceful Muslims who aren't violent it's beneficial to respect Islam. It's not like the majority of Muslims are violent so why blame the entire religion?

Re:Here's a better idea

[Cassius Corodes]

Ignoring that your particular example is illegal, and addressing your main point, what if someone posted legal things I found offensive on my street (not vandalism mind you), I would ignore it as I do many other things I find offensive in my daily life. Would there be outrage? - depending on the thing maybe - and that's fair and good. They have a right to cause us offence, and in turn some might exercise their right to protest (personally I wouldn't give it the publicity by protesting it). If they caused property damage there might be lawsuits, but otherwise there wouldn't be a case to answer. However someone threatened them with violence for doing it, I certainly would speak out against it.

The main point is that you don't have a right not to be offended in a free country. If someone offends you - feel free to offend them back, or you know - consider being the bigger person and exposing the other as petty. I might even support you for it. However, threaten violence and all free people ought to align against you.

And that is what this is about. This is not about causing offence for fun, its about taking back a boundary which has been slowly eroded by extremist elements among Muslims (and rather shamefully supported by the mainstream) who have declared that drawing images of Muhammad is punishable by death. They have backed this up with murder. As we saw with the south park debacle, some in the west have caved. We are here to defend our freedom and defy those who would threaten us into submission.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Cassius Corodes]

But religious freedom is a human right. They have a taboo and it involves images of Muhammad. Out of respect for the peaceful Muslims who aren't violent it's beneficial to respect Islam.

Freedom of religion is a human right, but respect of your religion is not. As an atheist, I can tell you that much of what is said by preachers in the street is disrespectful of atheists. I find the belief that I will be tortured for all eternity very disrespectful. But I don't demand them to respect me, just like Catholics cannot demand I respect their holy crackers. Neither can Muslims demand that the image of Muhammad be sacrosanct. This is just how it works is a free society.

In a multicultural society, there is good reason to behave respectfully to beliefs you do not share. But when such things are backed up with violence, then it crosses a line, and this is about making it very clear that such things will not be tolerated.

It's not like the majority of Muslims are violent so why blame the entire religion

Nobody is blaming the entire religion. Put it this way - if some atheists beheaded someone for saying "atheism is crap" or something similar - I would be the first to hold this banner. I would look down on anyone who felt it was more important to preserve "respect for atheism", then to reprint or otherwise display such as statement. In fact I would feel that this very act was doing more for this cause. Otherwise there is something very wrong with your priorities.

Re:Here's a better idea

[GooberToo]

The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim.

The real answer for such contradictions is because Islam is learning an incorrect translation of the Qu'ran. That's also why various bits don't make any sense at all and why other parts contradict each other.

In the valid translation, Islamic martyrs are to be provided 72 grapes - not virgins. The basic tenets of faith appear to be correct but there are huge and never ending errors which permeates all facets of what most of the world calls the Qu'ran. And oddly enough, it explains why every forth or firth (sorry I forget) stanza makes not sense - usually even after one attempts to stop comprehension within the current context. Shock of shocks, with a valid translation, suddenly everything reads smoothly and, gasp, even becomes comprehensible.

When the entire basis of your religion is corrupted and incomprehensible, additional corruption to manipulate the masses goes had in had. That why so many religions have had a "priest cast" such that the ignorant masses wouldn't actually know what it is they are supposed to do. In doing so, they are able to obtain ultimate control. In this case, everyone has a copy of the instructions but the instructions are so fucked up, the "cleric cast" can supply their own meanings so as to completely control every aspect of their ignorant masses.

You might even have to feel sorry for Muslims. This might just be the ultimate fuck up of mankind to date. Literally. That of course assumes the mistranslation was in fact an accident.

And of course, the last shock, the professor performing the proper translation has of course received numerous death threats and has already been denounced by most Islamic states; despite the fact he has both the proper credentials and the research which validates which translations. And yes, several others have also stepped forward and independently validated small portions of the provided work.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Reservoir Penguin]

In most Muslim countries non-muslim native population is exempt from sharia law. It certainly this way in Iran and Lebanon, Nigeria, etc.

Re:Here's a better idea

[jez9999]

Hang on, 'they' decide what is OK or what isn't? Isn't the whole point of religion that you don't ever need to change your moral compass; until God comes down again, what was said in ~0BC holds true? Say what you want about radical Muslims, at least they're consistent. If you want to see what it's like to take morality from religion and not the moral zeitgeist, you need only glance at the Taliban.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Permutation Citizen]

An atheist should be tolerant, as he condemns intolerance amongst religion.

That does not mean he should be silent and never criticize religion. Religious people tends to easily forget that their faith is not universal and try to impose their rules. That is the whole topic of this discussion, a censorship imposed for religious reason.

In those cases, it would be a mistake to remain silent.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Joe Tie.]

If you think something is a sin, (alcohol, for instance) why can't Muslims simply choose to not drink alcohol and leave everyone else alone?

You say, while probably writing from a country where people can be locked up in a rape room for growing or using pot.

Re:Here's a better idea

[houghi]

So 10% of the Christians want to change your behaviour? OK, if you say so, but then you go on to say it appears that Muslims want to convert everybody. None of the Muslims I have spoken to (even about religion) where trying to convince me to become a Muslim.

I would say that more Christians want me to become a Christian then there are Muslims that want me to become a Muslim. The fact that these people blow themselves up has nothing to do with Muslims. And the "live and let live" IS clearly in their vocabulary. I clearly states in the Koran that you need to repect other peoples belief.

Sure, that is not what the nutcases want you to read. Just like there are contradictions in other books, they exist there as well. Many Muslims have said that killing others because of their belief just shows that you are a bad Muslim. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7046487.ece
and http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents/a/suicide_bomb.htm
From the last link:
The predominant theme in the Qur'an is forgiveness and peace. Allah (God) is Merciful and Forgiving, and seeks that in His followers. Indeed, most people who spend time on a personal level with ordinary Muslims have found them to be peaceful, honest, hard-working, civic-minded people

And there are a lot of "bad" Muslims who smoke, drink alcohol, eat pork and not pray 5 times a day, just as there are "bad" Christians and "bad" Jews. However your idea seems pretty clear made up as you talk about "they" and "us". Well, I am neither "They" nor "Us" in this case and If you are "Us" then I rather be "They" who seem to be more open minded. And I talk from experience.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats funny about that?

How about the fact that progressives demand "tolerance" towards countries that publicly murder a hell of a lot more "LGBT" people ?

Clearly one has to differentiate arguments for progressives :

muslims are victims, even when stoning jews, gays or collaborators. It is plainly accepted from them to deny the holocaust, advocate stoning gays in the middle of New York, defend genocides (not just the holocaust, but sudan etc), and defend historical genocides (like the many genocides comitted by their prophet) and even paedophilia (the rape of a 7-year old girl by their prophet)

This has to be tolerated ...

right-leaning people (and everyone living in "the west", except the "progressivist" currently talking), even just normal moderate republicans, are "rich racist white people", even when they're black ("race-traitor" is a term of the left today, and apparently black women are race traitors if they're republican). Even if genocides are comitted against them (such as Iran 1972, or the situation in the middle east) do not count as genocides. A constant rocket barrage, like Israeli's are demanded to endure, againt them do not even count as agression

These people must be eradicated !

Can someone tell me ...

WHY ?

Re:Here's a better idea

[houghi]

Strange. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7046487.ece
And all Muslims who I have spoken to basically are against it.

It is just like the majority of Christians are against molesting children, yet some still are willing to do it.

Re:Here's a better idea

[stonewallred]

Funny that there are several holocaust denial pages,a bunch of anti-jew, anti-christian and even more anti-gay pages, but FB is not erasing them. I for one am tired of having my choices and options dictated by what offends muslims.

Re:Here's a better idea

[binkzz]

If you RTFS, the people themselves went out on the streets to protest and to get Facebook banned.

Although I don't think bannage of Facebook is necessarily a bad thing.

Re:Here's a better idea

[professionalfurryele]

You are free to get as upset as you like. The problem isn't that people in the Islamic world get upset. It is that Islalmist extremism has reach the point where death threats have caused self-censorship.

You think your prophet is sacred, we get it. Insulting your prophet is the equivalent of defacating on an American flag in your culture. Fine, we understand. There is something more important at stake here however and that is freedom of speech.

If you feel that Islam is incompatible with freedom of speech, that is fine. You can say so. Just don't be surprised when people say that your religion has no place in the civilized world. The fact of the matter is I don't believe that to be the case.

One of the things I observe about the Islamic world is that it's people aren't that different from our own. They admire our technological prowess and our democratic institutions. The problem is that the often don't understand the latter. Democracy, if it is to last, cant just be about giving people a voice in government. There are some bitter pills to swallow that come along with it. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, the Right to Life. A democracy is a dictatorship waiting to happen without all of these things.

If, like most of the Islamic world, you admire our democratic institutions I invite you to go and consider precisely why it is they function. I invite you to consider the commands in the Quran which require you to provide for the poor and the needy. Is not permanent and stable representation in government not mandated by these tenet? If so, does not the overriding message of tolerance and justice supersede the requirements prohibiting Muslims from idolatry?

Re:Here's a better idea

[drinkypoo]

You might even have to feel sorry for Muslims. This might just be the ultimate fuck up of mankind to date. Literally. That of course assumes the mistranslation was in fact an accident.

Why not say the same thing about Christians, who are working from a book known to have been edited for selfish political reasons on numerous occasions?

Re:Here's a better idea

[drinkypoo]

And we're talking about here and now. Yes, Islamic civilization was great in its heyday, and definitely more tolerant than most kingdoms of the Christendom back then. But today - it's not Christians who are beheading people in the name of their God, and video-taping it to use as propaganda.

I bet if you asked, the majority of Mexicans decapitating each other would self-identify as Catholics. Of course, they're doing it in the name of profit, not of God. But then, they've got a great example in the form of Catholic churches dripping with gold. I think the Catholics make it clear that religion is profitable.

Re:Here's a better idea

[History's Coming To]

That's a good idea as internet access has a serious western influence on these countries, for better or for worse.

Re:Here's a better idea

[scribblej]

The basic tenets of faith appear to be correct

Shock of shocks, with a valid translation, suddenly everything reads smoothly and, gasp, even becomes comprehensible.

he has both the proper credentials and the research which validates which translations. And yes, several others have also stepped forward and independently validated small portions of the provided work.

I don't know how to respond to that.

Please provide resources to back up these most remarkable claims.

Re:Here's a better idea

[shipbrick]

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither

Re:Here's a better idea

[gnasher719]

I was thinking the same thing, but the problem here is twofold. (1) Their religion has a very deep-seeded intolerance for making fun of their god. Or even trying to draw his face for that matter.

Muslims are not to draw pictures of Mohammed because he (quite reasonably) feared that some people would get confused and pray to Mohammed instead of Allah, and would forget that Mohammed was just the messenger, whereas Allah is the "real thing". So drawing a caricature of Mohammed would be obviously insulting, like drawing a caricature of the Queen of England would be insulting to some, but the real bad thing would be a muslim making a picture of Mohammed, hanging it on his wall and starting to pray to it. That's what the "no pictures" thing is really about.

Obviously that needs a bit of brain to understand, and the truly thoughtless religious types are often lacking that.

Re:Here's a better idea

[g8oz]

Really have you questioned all Muslims living in the West? Or are you exaggerating anecdotal evidence?

Re:Here's a better idea

[mrops]

I have said this before.

When you say, "yup, what a bunch of primitive savages.", its correct.

The only point is that its not Islam that is making them do it. They were savages way before Islam, if anything, Islam may have educated them (for better or worst).

There is a very fine line between a savage and a soldier. Here is what Alexander the great had to say about these people.

"I am involved in the land of a 'Leonine' (lion-like) and brave people, where every foot of the ground is like a well of steel, confronting my soldier. You have brought only one son into the world, but Everyone in this land can be called an Alexander."

Ref: wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_period_of_Afghanistan#Alexander_the_Great.2C_Seleucid-Mauryan_rivalry.2C_and_Greco-Bactrian_Rule.2C_330_BCE.E2.80.93ca._150_BCE

Re:Here's a better idea

[mrops]

This is simply not acceptable. And this ridicule serves as a way of showing that we are united in this perspective.

Funny, This is exactly what I heard from the Muslims.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Dan541]

Okay...... Who gave them electricity?

Re:Here's a better idea

[mrops]

Parts of the Koran specifically say to convert or kill infidels

Care to back this up.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Cassius Corodes]

Oh snap! Good one sir! Apart from the fact that, you know, Muslims aren't ridiculing anyone and instead are killing folk.

Re:Here's a better idea

[stonewallred]

Problem is that the war does not stop until all of the earth has been brought under the rule of Islam, according to the koran. So if you are going to quote it, quote it all. And the marmaduke pickthall translation is better than the yusef ali translation.

Re:Here's a better idea

[stonewallred]

The mongols were pretty good at killing large numbers of folks when they strayed into causing problems. brutal and murderous, but they ran a tight ship.

Re:Here's a better idea

[mrops]

Along with this, its so far in best interest of some countries it stays this way for some more time, at least in Saudi Arabia. With Education comes demand for freedom.

If you look at places that have oil in Saudi Arabia, 90% of the population are Shia muslim. They are aligned with Iran. If you educate these guys, they will demand more freedom, this does not gel well with ruling Sunni royals. Nor does it gel with Oil consumers. Majority of oil in control of Iran is one thing that terrifies the local government as well as uncle sam.

Solution is to keep them un-educated, rule them by force, call them rebels or "enemy combatants". Gas them (yes it has happened in Saudi Arabia too, entire villages, indiscriminately gassed).

Re:Here's a better idea

[stonewallred]

explain then the many historical drawings, made by muslims, of your pedoprophet. seems that it was OK a few hundred years ago and now just recently it has become evil. add in the koran saying none, and the numerous islamic drawing of flowers, birds, plants and other things that are also forbidden by your book of fairy tales.

Re:Here's a better idea

[shutdown -p now]

You've linked to an article that claims that suicide bombings are un-Islamic. Which is perfectly true - they are also un-Christian, but in both cases it's not because you kill someone; it's because you kill yourself. Suicide is a major sin in all Abrahamic religions.

Oh, and they are also against "terrorism". But this is a loaded term - you can mean anything you want by it. But, for example, executing offenders in a way prescribed by Shari'a is clearly not terrorism to a Muslim - it's merely implementing the divine law; same as executing a murderer in a Western society is not considered terrorism.

Meanwhile, if you want an actual example, how about this? The guy is by no means a radical; hell, he was the only Muslim MP in the parliament at that moment, and, effectively, representative of the entire NZ Muslim community. And he goes on record to say things like that. "Oh, no, it's totally not right here - but elsewhere [read: where Shari'a is already implemented], stoning people is perfectly fine".

Re:Here's a better idea

[couchslug]

Western non-Muslims make a very stupid mistake in assuming that "Muslims are just like us, but worship the same God differently".

They dearly want this to be so, for it to be different would fuck with THEIR ideology.

Re:Here's a better idea

[couchslug]

"I guess you would prefer the Muslim government option, where they don't have gay people at all?"

Fred Phelps takes all sorts of criticism, but mainstream Islam holds the same view of homosexuals. Their God Hates Fags and they aren't shy about it!

Re:Here's a better idea

[masmullin]

hilarious!

Re:Here's a better idea

[shutdown -p now]

There are Muslims that are "just like us", there's no mistake there. In my home country that is true with respect to the majority of Muslims. Heck, my grandfather is a Muslim of this kind. Apart from the fact that they go to mosque and not church, you wouldn't tell the difference.

But you know why is that? It's because the Muslim population in that region has long been a minority - sizeable, but minority - forced to exist in a Christian state. Not persecuted for their beliefs or forced to convert, as it happened in, say, Spain, but Christians were obviously not particularly keen on the whole "convert or die" part of Islam, either - and they had the upper hand. So Muslims there had to ditch that part of their religion - and, after a few centuries of living that way, "live and let live" became an entrenched part of their culture.

Then also we have Turkey - a different story, and much more rapid secularization, but it also shows that you can do to Islam what we did to Christianity in the West some time ago.

The problem with many western Muslims is that they are immigrants or immediate descendants of immigrants from societies where Islam is a dominant part of the culture, and do not perceive themselves as truly a part of the society they now live in (this is especially true of children; first generation, who immigrated themselves, are usually much more willing to assimilate). This can be fixed with time, through support and encouragement for those willing to assimilate (which does not need to imply renouncing their religion; only those practices of it which are barbaric), and ditching the rest of the lot - they can go live in their Islamic Shari'a states if they're so keen on that part.

Our problem is that it is considered offensive and non-politically-correct to imply that any particular Muslim - or even a significant number of Muslims anywhere - are extremist. If we stop pandering to fundamentalist groups, and focus specifically on those few Muslims who are willing to reconcile their beliefs with core liberal values ("liberal" in its original meaning of freedom and human-rights, not the modern American politically-charged term) - and for the rest, stop the PC bullshit and call them what they are, fanatical religious bigots - then I can see that working out over time.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Vellmont]

Every time I see a story like this it makes me want to find the part of my state with the highest Islamic population and then decorate the streets so they cannot walk ten feet without seeing a cartoon making fun of Mohammed. I

Which would be great fuel for the nut-job extremists. You think their goal is to create non-believers into believers? Not a chance. Their goal is to create believers into extremists. If you REALLY did what you propose, you'd fuel the fires of the extremists by creating a stark separation between Them and Us.

Extremism lives on these separations and allows it to be OK to do otherwise horrendous things to people. It works both ways. I recently saw a Frontline about a platoon of U.S. soldiers (a minority I hope) who spoke of not caring about killing innocent civilians and doing so for particularly good reason because they were only "hodgie" (a slur used by some U.S. Military against Iraqis). The story was about this platoon that had some serious problems, and it was quite obvious the sick individuals tried to justify their cruelty through a separation of Them and Us. Many of them wound up in prison later after continuing their behavior once they got back to the US.

By creating a series of cartoons making fun of their religious leader all you do is send a message that "you're not us". When you do that, people turn inward and look to anyone already spreading that message (i.e. extremists). If you think there's some deep analysis going on beyond that, you're sorely mistaken.

Re:Here's a better idea

[v1]

iirc, drawing Allah is also forbidden?

I thought it all came down to their extreme view of idols. Idols were all the rage with pagans, and I think they wanted to make sure that no one prayed to images or statues etc of their god, but to their god directly.

But in a time where paganism isn't too popular you'd think they would consider relaxing a bit on that one.

Re:Here's a better idea

[phantomfive]

Muslims aren't consistent, any more than any other religion. There are huge disagreements about various points of doctrine among different schools. At one point they were arguably the most academically enlightened group of people on earth. So once again, it isn't religion, it's the culture. The Taliban wants to enforce sharia law, but a good portion of what they consider sharia law isn't found in the koran, it comes from custom.

Re:Here's a better idea

[elucido]

But religious freedom is a human right. They have a taboo and it involves images of Muhammad. Out of respect for the peaceful Muslims who aren't violent it's beneficial to respect Islam.

Freedom of religion is a human right, but respect of your religion is not. As an atheist, I can tell you that much of what is said by preachers in the street is disrespectful of atheists. I find the belief that I will be tortured for all eternity very disrespectful. But I don't demand them to respect me, just like Catholics cannot demand I respect their holy crackers. Neither can Muslims demand that the image of Muhammad be sacrosanct. This is just how it works is a free society.

In a multicultural society, there is good reason to behave respectfully to beliefs you do not share. But when such things are backed up with violence, then it crosses a line, and this is about making it very clear that such things will not be tolerated.

It's not like the majority of Muslims are violent so why blame the entire religion

Nobody is blaming the entire religion. Put it this way - if some atheists beheaded someone for saying "atheism is crap" or something similar - I would be the first to hold this banner. I would look down on anyone who felt it was more important to preserve "respect for atheism", then to reprint or otherwise display such as statement. In fact I would feel that this very act was doing more for this cause. Otherwise there is something very wrong with your priorities.

It wasn't the atheists that I was being critical of. I'm critical of Christians who think Christianity and their culture is better than Islam. If you are an atheist who attacks all religious equally then you are justified in attacking Islam too.

I'm not advocating multiculturalism, I'm saying that Muslims have a right to maintain their cultural integrity. I'm not saying that they have a right to go and try to convert people. I'm not saying they have a right to try and change other peoples culture. I'm saying if they want to wear a Burka in certain designated environments, or in their local town, they should be able to. I'm not saying they should be able to wear a Burka on a plane, or go to the airport looking like this anymore than I would say you should work for IBM without wearing a business suit or that you shuold be in the military without the necessary haircut.

Re:Here's a better idea

[elucido]

Out of respect for the peaceful Muslims who aren't violent it's beneficial to respect Islam

I have no respect for Islam any longer. There have been enough Muslim attacks on our freedom, and looking closer at what they believe in only fills me with disgust and repulsion. And besides, the so called "peaceful" Muslims support the extremists by heart and wallet, they are just to cowardly to do anything themselves. After all, it's inherent in Islam, the religion of barbarism.

Us vs Them? Islam isn't them. The extremists are them, and those extremists may be Christians as well.

Re:Here's a better idea

[poopdeville]

Sounds like Rome and the modern Western state.

Re:Here's a better idea

[DarthVain]

I agree with you a bit, but Christians can't really talk either.

Between Crusades, Missionaries, and Mormons (They are Christian, right?) Christians has been trying to "Save" people and "Bring" the word of jebus to the heathens of the world. Some times this involved simple words, other times considerably more.

Anyway I am more of the mind of can't people just leave each other the fuck alone, and keep their damn beliefs to themselves? If I want to hear about your Potato God, I will damn well ask you about him, otherwise I really don't give a shit.

If part of your religion requires absurd rules of conduct, I will generally ignore them. If they are really apparent, and to me weird, I might stare as I find it strange. If you try to get special treatment because of your weird rules, or want to limit me by them, then of course I won't be too happy about it.

I would say round up all the crazy religious freaks and throw them on an island, and they can leave the rest of the sensible world alone, but I am pretty sure my grandparents are Baptists, and I do love them, so can't we all just get along!

Re:Here's a better idea

[Ihmhi]

tl;dr: Less Taliban and Spanish Inquisition, more Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

More flies with honey, etc.

(in b4 "No one expects..." etc.)

I agree on all points, by the by.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Ihmhi]

As an atheist, I can tell you that much of what is said by preachers in the street is disrespectful of atheists.

I have those in my city along with Mormons (or is it Jehovah's Witnesses, I forget). Whenever they point to me and say "Have you found salvation?" etc., I always (honestly) respond with the fact that I am an Atheist. Either an intriguing debate follows (like, say, the kind of talks Robin Williams and Matt Damon had in Good WIll Hunting) or they go batshit crazy (like Quentin Tarantino's preacher in Little Nicky, i.e. "You... make the Lord very nervous.)

If you're going to stand on a soapbox (sometimes literally) and preach your beliefs, the least I can do is be honest about my beliefs when asked.

Incidentally, one of my best friends is a Christian (Reformed Churches of America) pastor. I've never been bothered about my lack of religion once by him (or really anyone who's on staff at the church when I visit), although we do poke fun at one another occasionally. We do get into good debates every once in a while as well.

Re:Here's a better idea

[jesset77]

Ignoring that your particular example is illegal

Un-ignoring that my example was illegal because that was a major part of the point, electronically distributing images of Mohamed is illegal in many Muslim countries including Pakistan.

As a child of Western culture, you feel comfortable with the infrastructure and laws we have in the Western World, as whatever makes you uncomfortable is criminalized. You probably don't study international laws very often, and may not realize that in many countries it is perfectly legal to drink and drive or that there are countries where organized gang-style vengeance is either tacitly allowed or legally codified (dating back to the "blood avengers" of the old testament)

So you'll litter the streets — or to legalize your tactical offensiveness, perhaps erect legal billboards — displaying Mohammed in a Muslim community. Doing this, you hide behind western law that does not ban this Muslim-specific "obscenity". But then you'll go home, safe in the knowledge that they cannot retaliate by putting Goatse on one of your billboards, because whatever offends Western sensibilities is banned by Western law. If they tried, they might be prosecuted, fined, or even see jailtime (not to mention the community uproar and scandal that would be caused) Make it underaged pornography instead of goatse, and then I don't think some vigilante violence from the westerners would be too unrealistic to see happening.

Reverse this scenario in a Muslim country and the anti-westerner obscenity would still be illegal, probably getting you fined and the billboard taken down, lots of sneering looks from the locals, but barely for any reason beyond their penchant for legislating tact. The Mohammed billboard OTOH would cause roughly the same controversy as child porn would here, vigilante violence and all.

The take away is that every culture either has or manufactures some image or symbol which they find profane and cannot tolerate having displayed. While I agree with you that the Muslims ought to grow beyond their stigmas (and even their religion), I'm just saying that the Western World had better take a close look in the mirror before judging other people on the particulars of what they find profane.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Ihmhi]

I think it's a combination of factors, really.

For one things, culturally and economically most "Western" countries are far more comfortable and stable than most countries in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa. Most Americans (and a good lot of Europeans) don't typically worry about nutjobs running through their neighborhood with assault rifles or a Hellfire missile slamming into their backyard.

For another, we don't have flat-out crazy shit like madrassas. Yes, religion did a good bit for education in the Western world several hundred years ago, but nowadays schools in most Western countries are largely a public or private institution. There are religious schools, but they generally aren't what can only be referred to as batshit crazy (creepy things like "Jesus camp" aside.)

A lot of the major religions have "convert the infidels or kill 'em" statements. The Christian Bible and the Koran both contain multiple instances of such verses. In a place like America where shit like an "honor killing" or lopping off a nonbeliever's head is going to get you 25 to life, that shit sure as Hell ain't gonna happen. But in places where if you do something of that nature and barely get a slap on the wrist (if that), it happens.

How many Americans do you figure would go around shooting up people if they could claim it was for religious reasons and get away from it? Sometimes thinking about that downright terrifies me.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Ihmhi]

"5.73" : Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third
(person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they
desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those
among them who disbelieve. Remove from them their heads, therefore, and place thy excrement in its place.

Ye Gods! R. Lee Ermey is a TIME TRAVELING ISLAMIC PROPHET!

Re:Here's a better idea

[shutdown -p now]

It is a punishment, when living in an Islamic state, to openly try to overthrow it.

And declaring oneself to not be a Muslim anymore amounts to overthrowing the state?

There is no law in Islamic law that says you are forced to live in the land, but if you do choose to live there you cannot openly disobey its laws - and the punishment is either exile, imprisonment, or execution.

Well, when the guy in Afghanistan was sentenced to death for apostasy, and Western governments offered to take him in as a refuge, the local clerics objected on the grounds that he'd escape proper punishment. I quote:

"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too. We must set an example. He must be hanged."

So, apparently, exile isn't good enough for apostates.

Keep in mind that execution was much more common 1500 years ago, back before there were developed penal systems.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most active users of death penalty today, and also the only one - to the best of my knowledge - to still practice beheading.

Christian empires were particularly fond of beheading.

Christian states of 500 years ago had many far more gruesome forms of execution that were routinely used, such as quartering, burning or boiling alive, or breaking on a wheel. At the time, Islamic justice was definitely more humane in comparison.

However, that was 500 years ago, and it seems that the approach to punishment in (ex-)Christian states liberalized much faster than in Islamic states, quite a few of which are pretty much still stuck in Middle Ages when it comes to that. In comparison, torture and torture executions were already not practiced de facto in UK by the middle of 18th century (e.g. if someone was sentenced to be burned at a stake, he was hanged instead, and body burned afterwards), and officially abolished entirely by the end of that same century. Others have followed shortly.

In a non-Islamic state, Islamic law permits a muslim to live in that state as long as he obeys *that state's* laws, and that state does not compel him to break Islamic law. In other words, Islamic law says you must obey the laws of the country in which you live, whether or not it is an Islamic country.

In general, what if the laws are unjust?

From Islamic perspective, what if the laws contradict the Islamic law? For example, what if there is a (legitimate) fatwa for an execution of some person, but which would be considered a murder - and thus illegal - under the laws of the state where that person resides. Does that count as "compelling to break Islamic law"?

Re:Here's a better idea

[mooingyak]

The Mongols outdid other conquerors via sheer volume of conquests, but the damage to a region (in terms of population and property destruction) was comparatively light for the era when measured on a per city basis, especially in comparison to contemporary Europeans.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Cassius Corodes]

Well now I'm not sure what your point really is. Since you dont really believe that child porn and Muhammad images are equally wrong, there is nothing really to answer here.

I'm just saying that the Western World had better take a close look in the mirror before judging other people on the particulars of what they find profane.

I think the west ought to realise just how good we have it here, and realise that many many others do not and when we cow-tow to some sensibility bullshit (at the cost of free speech) it is those very people we are letting down. There are people fighting and dying for freedom in the middle east right now (and I dont mean US soldiers - I mean the ME citizen themselves), and when we lower the bar and say its ok because they are of a different culture - we piss on them and the people within out culture who have died to give us those rights.

And I want to make this point very clear. I am all about tolerance, but if you use violence to demand special treatment I am not interested at all at how important that treatment is to your culture/religion etc. The ideas that underpin western culture, are not to be traded or compromised. On some philosophical level you can say that all culture is equivalent, but you only have to spend a few months living in a particular culture to comprehend just how better western ideals are. And this isn't about westerners being superior, as there is nothing about any other peoples that prevents them from having the same ideals. Its about our ideals being superior and the fact that barring a few areas we actually do live up to them.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Lunzo]

Why not say the same thing about Christians, who are working from a book known to have been edited for selfish political reasons on numerous occasions?

[Citation Needed]

Re:Here's a better idea

[Modern Primate]

Let's totally unplug all backwards theocracies from the internet.

Leaving them with only the propaganda permitted by said theocracies? What do you suppose would happen then, a sudden burst of enlightenment based on the same ideas that have made them "backwards" to begin with?

There's a reason tyrants block the flow of information. There is no greater threat to tyranny than the knowledge that people elsewhere are freer and happier than you are, and the information that explains how they got to be that way.

Gods I hope you were just being sarcastic and I missed it. I'm more than a little disturbed by the fact that you got an "insightful" mod for this.

Re:Here's a better idea

[shnull]

Yes, listen to the man , i can hear my ancestors calling from beyond the grave : "crusaaaaade !!!'

Re:Here's a better idea

[GooberToo]

Why not say the same thing about Christians, who are working from a book known to have been edited for selfish political reasons on numerous occasions?

Hate to burst your bubble but all three religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are all founded on the same testaments and gospels. All three are considered religions of Abraham. What we call the Bible is a collection of articles which elders felt best represented the religion. Interestingly enough, some of the books which were excluded were central to the original author's belief systems. Such references still exist in the Bible today - but many people don't know what they mean because they were not actually included in the Bible. I'm sure the paradoxical view of the church elders will not be lost on you.

Without a doubt, there are many verifiable translation errors in Christianity. We know this because we still have a lot of original reference cannon material on which the modern Bible is based. For example, in the story of Noah's Ark the flood was regional and not global. Had it been global, a completely different word would have been used in the original text. Just the same, the core story is still accurately portrayed - more or less. So in one hand we have a book which is a fairly accurate representation of the original works; with errors. The bulk of the Bible and Torah is fairly accurate. The heart of its teachings is more or less there. In the other corner we have what is basically a completely wrong translation; which readily explains why much of it simply doesn't even make sense; within or without context.

In short, the Qu'ran is it self the definition of irony, as it both denounces and re-enforces the books on which it is based. And it denounces them because it says these books have been corrupted by man despite the fact the Qu'ran has been corrupted at a level unparalleled in any other religion known to man. Irony of irony.

Also, the Qu'ran's translation woes stem from adding/removing accent marks which can dramatically change meaning to words and phrases. Most of the translation errors in the Bible stem from the fact that simple cultural misunderstandings existed; or cultural context was simply ignored. The differences in the degrees of errors here are truly profound.

So long story short, I don't believe they are at all comparable in their degree of error.

Re:Here's a better idea

[GooberToo]

I'm going to come up short on providing additional reading. What got me looking at this was a documentary on the History Channel. Immediately afterwards I was able to Google and find additional material to read. Interestingly enough, the same documentary also speaks of the Qu'ran and other articles which were clearly in flux at the time. And according places it 150-200 years well after Mohammad's death. Which is further proof the Qu'ran is not as it has always been. Which is one of the staples of the religion.

IIRC, the professor in question teaches at one of the ivory universities. It would be fair to say his work is far from definitive; regardless, he has a very compelling history to share. This combines with the fact that the Qu'ran suddenly becomes not only readable but sensible after his translations, especially within cultural context, IMOHO, is very compelling.

For example, as for the grapes vs virgins, back then grapes had not only cultural significance but also religious significance. Grapes also provided for wine. As such, in the after life, you would be refreshed and replenished with grapes - not virgins. Accordingly, women were of little value back then. So which makes more sense? Eternal refreshment and health or a bunch of little valued women where materialism no longer makes sense? Having many wives was a point of material wealth, not of spirituality.

Re:Here's a better idea

[jesset77]

Well now I'm not sure what your point really is. Since you dont really believe that child porn and Muhammad images are equally wrong, there is nothing really to answer here.

My point is that Muslims find Mohammed images to be blasphemous and believe they cause spiritual harm not fully represented in the image itself. To them it represents an externality, just like one more needless CO2 emission or one more mp3 downloader.

They see creating and pandering in these images as hazardous enough to justify extreme acts up to and including violence.

This is a sensibility the Western World shares in the form of underage pornography. We don't give a crap what kind of cartoons you draw of Jesus or Buddha or anyone else, but wave around a topless photo of a seventeen your old and suddenly the gloves are off.

If hillbillies lynch and murder the photographer us Westerners don't get too uptight about it, we see it as two things we don't like canceling one another out. Thus, your expecting anything different from the Muslim community is just stupid. Simply take a look at your own sensitivities and you'll grok why it counterproductive to trample theirs.

Re:Here's a better idea

[Cassius Corodes]

Ok I was wrong - you do see child pornography as equivalent to Muhammad images.

If hillbillies lynch and murder the photographer us Westerners don't get too uptight about it, we see it as two things we don't like canceling one another out.

I don't know which country you live in but vigilante justice always ends in a jail term. I have seen even the worst of paedophiles given round the clock police protection due to threats. We may not like them but we obey the rule of law. I dont see this happening in the Muslim world at all, in fact Iran offers a reward to those who kill people for insulting Islam.

Simply take a look at your own sensitivities and you'll grok why it counterproductive to trample theirs.

Feel free to compromise your ideals at the threat of violence, but you wont garner any respect from me, or for that matter from Muslims either.

Re:Here's a better idea

[ShakaUVM]

>>I sure find people who believe all atheists are Richard-Dawkins-wannabes annoying as hell

To be fair, all those Richard-Dawkins-wannabes here on Slashdot ARE annoying as hell.

The groupthink on /. is intolerable in its intolerance of religion.

I don't believe I've ever beheaded a person for not converting to Christianity, stoned someone to death for adultery, or tried to get local area bars shut down for serving alcohol on Sundays, but the moronic groupthink here hits all Christians on /. with that paintbrush, even though NONE of the above is actually a Christian activity to do.

>>So much so that most atheists just call themselves agnostic to avoid being confused with an anti-theist.

And as a Christian, I tend to keep my mouth shut because it's just not worth people assuming a thousand incorrect things about me by when I call myself a theist.

Re:Here's a better idea

[ShakaUVM]

>>It wasn't the atheists that I was being critical of. I'm critical of Christians who think Christianity and their culture is better than Islam.

Are you honestly making the claim that all cultures are of equal ethical value?

Cultural relativism is a dark and windy path to walk down, my friend. Next thing you know you'll say it's wrong to stop islanders from Figi from kidnapping small boys from other islands and tying them to the tops of their masts, where they either die from exposure and vomiting, or survive and get brainwashed into joining their army. I mean, after all, stopping this is a form of cultural imperialism - by stopping their source of recruits, you're destroying their culture.

A similar analogy exists for Islam. Nobody cares that they don't eat pork, or wash their hands before dinner, or any purely cultural things like that. It's when their culture interfaces with our's, in a context of historical conquest, kidnapping and brainwashing (the Balkans experienced situations similar to the Figi example above for centuries) or modern day terrorism, that Christianity has responded to it. You can't simply call it cultural imperialism, because cultural interfaces work two ways.

Or are you just giving Islam special protection? Like everyone else does?

Re:Here's a better idea

[kasimbaba]

Problem is that the war does not stop until all of the earth has been brought under the rule of Islam, according to the koran. So if you are going to quote it, quote it all.

Where in the Quran does it say that?

And the marmaduke pickthall translation is better than the yusef ali translation.

Here's the Pickthall translation of 47:4

"Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain."

How is this better than the Yusuf Ali one? If anything, it makes it clearer that we kill disbelievers only when we meet them in battle.

Win-Win situation...

[Tackhead]

"Facebook will be re-opened once we erase the pages that contain the obnoxious images." And how do they propose to do that?

Either a billion people too immature to handle cartoons are kept off the Internet forever, or every Facebook server on the planet is vaporized in a hail of fast neutrons.

Call me cynical, but either way, the world ends up a better place.

Re:Win-Win situation...

[shoehornjob]

Personally I rather like the second option. It seems that privacy aint the only thing that's dead /satanic laugh. More internets for me (the tubes just got a bit wider;-)

Re:Win-Win situation...

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

...or every Facebook server on the planet is vaporized in a hail of fast neutrons.

*Ahem* and when that happens, how do you propose I like things and stalk my classmates? I'm not going back to the Stone Age of actually liking things and using Classmates.com

Re:Win-Win situation...

[GoochOwnsYou]

One thing you have to remember is there is no plans to remove the images from Facebook, Facebook will not remove them as they do not infringe on the terms of service, its not in their best interest to piss off their core base (free speech loving westerners) and the people who uploaded the images have no interest in taking it down.

This "tempoary" block wil lbe around for a long time.

Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

These sick fucks seem completely obsessed with him and his drawings. Isn't the point of this ban to prevent people from idolizing Muhammad?

Re:Idiots

[Vinegar Joe]

The point of the ban is to try and force non-muslims to accept Muslim rules.

Re:Idiots

[Ethanol-fueled]

The point of the ban is to try and force non-muslims to accept Muslim rules.

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?

Re:Idiots

[JamesP]

And that's the Religion of peace and understanding, everybody...

Re:Idiots

[TimSSG]

You do realize that renouncing being a Muslims means death. Muslims are commanded to kill any adult renouncing of the religion. Tim S.

Re:Idiots

[colinrichardday]

In the US at least, requiring such an oath would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Re:Idiots

[Merls the Sneaky]

But the country that had that law would not have any muslims, therefore the death threat for leaving becomes moot.

Re:Idiots

[icebrain]

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.

Re:Idiots

[thatskinnyguy]

Muhammad is not an idol or a god figure. As is said "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet."

Re:Idiots

[couchslug]

"The point of the ban is to try and force non-muslims to accept Muslim rules."

Precisely. That is really the way most religions work.

Re:Idiots

[Totenglocke]

It's scary how many people in Western countries think Muslims are beyond reproach though. I was in an IRC channel a few months back (don't ask me which, I sure as hell don't remember) and I was playing around with different screen names. While doing this, I found out that the names Jesus and God were banned, so a friend suggested I try Allah - that was allowed. After I change it to that, some Muslim starts foaming at the mouth about how he's going to hunt me down and kill me for "insulting" his god merely by making my screen name Allah (despite the fact that I didn't say a single unkind or inappropriate thing while I had that name on). As you would expect, everyone in the room told him to STFU and asked him to stop being an irrational lunatic, right? Wrong, they vilified me and defended the Muslim threatening to kill someone just over a damn screen name.

The Muslim extremists have already won - politicians are too cowardly to stand up to them because they might lose a few votes and most citizens are afraid to stand up to them because they might be called "mean" or "racist".

Re:Idiots

[gyrogeerloose]

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

That's the first part of the first sentence of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Note especially the part after the comma--that's what's known as the Exercise Clause. It very clearly states Congress shall make no law [...]

Your argument is specious because it refers to the application of existing laws, not the creation of a new one.

Re:Idiots

[jbssm]

Yeah, but last time I saw, here in the west, the religious people (and I must tell you that these people really annoys me with their stupid beliefs and the stuff the say every time I say I'm an atheist), don't kill anyone if they don't accept their religion rules ... they just don't become a part of their religion.

And if you cannot see how that's is much more morally and socially advanced than what muslin do ... then there is something very wrong with you.

Re:Idiots

[Khashishi]

I would not trade freedom of religion for freedom from Islam.

Re:Idiots

[Nahan]

The point of the ban is to try and force non-muslims to accept Muslim rules.

Wouldn't the next course of prudent action be to start a group that asks its members to change their profile picture to a depiction of the prophet Mohamed.

Re:Idiots

[kasimbaba]

How is this so? The ban was done for the benefit of Bangladeshis, who are almost 100% Muslims.

Re:Idiots

[CAIMLAS]

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?

The (minority, as in any faith) principled, sincere Muslims? They'd pass and stay in their home countries; their home countries would, as a result, become more peaceful and prosperous as a result.

The others? They'd lie. It is not only acceptable but condoned and suggested that Muslims lie to infidels in the pursuit of their conversion and conquest. (Yes, in the quran.)

Re:Idiots

[Bios_Hakr]

>>Remarriage triggers new assessment of child support payments, and payments are only to be made if the new marriage cannot fully support the children.

I was with you up to this point. Just because someone else is dicking your ex, does not mean that your kids are not still yours. Now, maybe if the new husband wants to adopt your kids, then I could see stopping child support.

Re:Idiots

[Johnno74]

Which makes islam a cult, rather than a religion. Admittedly the world's largest cult, but a cult none the less.

Wait, I thought the world's biggest cult was catholicism?

Anyway, as someone else once said:

"I don't get the point of religious conflict. Its just like two dudes fighting over who has the best imaginary friend"

Re:Idiots

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

They just say that so that when they kill you, they have an excuse to continue to infect our planet and culture.

So what's the US's excuse?

(Hint: they don't need one. Culture "infects" itself naturally.)

Re:Idiots

[mallydobb]

mod +2 insightful up!

Yet in the process of "revering" prophets they have done just what they wanted to avoid, creating an idol. If a prophet is just a man should it matter if people draw or satirize him? By acting so roguish in regards to Muhammad they have in fact idolized him and seem to be placing him almost on parity with God.

Re:Idiots

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Well for one, for all of our problems as a country, we can handle a few jokes and some porn without blowing up a building.

I'm not going to defend the US. We do plenty of fucked up shit, bad stuff... mostly to our people...

But thats a much wider topic that is beyond the scope of Muslims murdering/threatening people over portrayals of Muhammad that they find offensive.

I mean if you're going to go into humanities faults, we're going to be here for a long fucking time talking about this.

The issue is more inline with woman's rights. If Muslims dont want women to be equal.. well fuck them and their women... But dont for a second expect American or Euro women to take a beating and wear a burka because Muslins want it that way.

I have no problem with muslims walling up their world and staying primatives... if thats how they want to live. But Fuck them if they want to impose their shit on our people, such as the South Park creators or other free thinking artists/authors around the world for example Salim Rushdee.

All religion sucks period. This is just one of those stupid human behavioral side effects religious arrogance.

Re:Idiots

[Kirijini]

Wait, let me get this straight:

You used a religiously sensitive name that caused another person to be offended and react aggressively, and other people agreed that your religiously sensitive name was offensive.

In comparison, other religiously sensitive names, such as Jesus and God, were banned.

Therefore, "The Muslim extremists have already won."

Re:Idiots

[shutdown -p now]

And that's the Religion of peace and understanding, everybody...

You missed the memo where they explained what it actually means:

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back ... Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him."

I.e. the "peace, tolerance and kindness" is that you will be kindly asked to convert to Islam or die one last time before your head is finally chopped off - and you can be sure that if you do convert, you'll live (though practice shows that guys like Taliban or Chechen jihadists like to test the new convert's faith by requiring him to execute his infidel former comrades).

Re:Idiots

[shutdown -p now]

The Muslim extremists have already won - politicians are too cowardly to stand up to them because they might lose a few votes and most citizens are afraid to stand up to them because they might be called "mean" or "racist".

It's fairly obvious that it is a rather unstable situation, and it looks like the pendulum is already swinging the other way.

Which is unfortunate; I fear that, if PC police will keep the lid shut tight, when the thing finally explodes (and it will, mark my words), it won't just be anti-Islamic - it will also be plainly racist, and quite possibly warring fundamentalist Christian; and violent, with another Kristallnacht and lynchings on the streets. Which would be even worse.

Re:Idiots

[Curunir_wolf]

Yeah, but last time I saw, here in the west, the religious people (and I must tell you that these people really annoys me with their stupid beliefs and the stuff the say every time I say I'm an atheist), don't kill anyone if they don't accept their religion rules ... they just don't become a part of their religion.

You do realize that Atheism is a religion, too, right? I mean, it's a faith-based belief. I find it sometimes stunning how some atheists tend to claim that their faith is somehow superior to everybody else's, and complain about having other faiths "imposed" on them, even as they going around trying to impose their own faith on the rest of the world.

Re:Idiots

[Curunir_wolf]

Playing around with nicknames in a chat is called "abuse".

IRC bans are not related to nicknames, but to idents and to IP addresses.

Calling an IRC channel "room" proves that you are just a pathetic bored Western lame kid with a hamburger inside your skull.

Admit this, it has nothing to do with religion or with politics.

You were the one to behave as a moron online and just triggered a chain reaction.

Looks like IRC has become a religion now, too.

Re:Idiots

[u38cg]

So, uh, you behaved like a dick and when people reacted badly, you were surprised? Gosh.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that renouncing being a Muslims means death. Muslims are commanded to kill any adult renouncing of the religion.

There're passages like this in the old testament as well. Like this one:
"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)

Oh, wait. That was God killing thousands for having looked at the ark. I meant this one:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)

I just keep making mistakes. That one was about killing homosexuals. This is the one:
"If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted." (Leviticus 26:21-22)

If you don't obey god, he'll kill your children.

Here's the quote I was promising you (for real this time):
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13:6)
"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him" (Deuteronomy 13:8)
"But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8)

Re:Idiots

[VShael]

Yeah, but who's going to kill them, if you need to renounce your own faith to follow the apostates into America?

I think it's a genius (if unworkable) idea.

Re:Idiots

[jbssm]

Man, atheism is no religion. Atheism is the absence of a religion. What a stupid argument you are giving to support religion. Do you see atheist gathering and praying? Making offerings to the gods? Following some mystical imposed rules? Believing in stuff they never seen and nobody can prove? NO! So it's NOT a religion, stop being idiot.

From Wikipedia: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities".

From Wikipedia: "Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship[1], usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs".

Re:Idiots

[professionalfurryele]

Atheism is a religion the same way that Divine Command theory is a religion (as in neither are religions). Atheism is a philosophical positions. It also isn't a faith in either the caricatured conception of faith most people have (belief without evidence or justifying argument) or in the theological sense (trust in previously reliable god).

Lets assume that what you mean by faith is "belief without evidence or justifying argument". I'm going to assume you mean this because if you mean that atheists have faith because they trust in a previously reliable god then really there is no hope for you. Most rational theists don't have faith by this definition never mind most atheists. Ask someone why they believe or don't believe. If they give an argument or present evidence then by this definition they don't have faith. Their argument may be unsound or their evidence questionable but you cant criticize them because they have 'faith'.

The fact that you can bust out an argument like the one you present is very telling. It indicates that either you are misrepresenting your position or you think it is unjustified. Trained theologians don't argue this way because they actually know what 'faith' is.

As for complaints about having religion imposed, you act like atheists are the only ones who want secular principles enforced. Most Christians I know are adamant secularists because they recognize that secularism is the only way to provide for the freedom of religion that protects their religion just as it protects every other religious and non-religious belief.

Re:Idiots

[icebrain]

That's what I'm saying. When you marry someone with kids, you're taking their kids in, too. That would be part of the deal.

Re:Idiots

[Curunir_wolf]

Man, atheism is no religion.

It absolutely is a religion, as it is a faith-based belief. And posting Wikipedia definitions (did you write them yourself?) doesn't make your argument any more valid.

What part of "faith" don't you get? There is no way to arrive at a conclusion that "there is no god" without a leap of faith - you can't prove that non-existence rationally.

If you like placing value on Wikipedia, here's one you may want to look at:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Note how they include claims about the "non-existence of any deity"? Yea, that's because that belief (atheism) is also one of the "faiths" that agnostics reject.

Re:Idiots

[jbssm]

Man, it's atheism, not Agnosticism ... you don't even know the difference.

What part of "faith" don't you get? There is no way to arrive at a conclusion that "there is no god" without a leap of faith - you can't prove that non-existence rationally.

Ahahahahah. So, let me tell you that I saw a flying spaghetti monster abducting cows yesterday in Lisbon. I hope you have FAITH that what I say is not true.

I don't need faith not to believe in some magic mumbo jumbo about a god a a jesus born from some virgin. I need common sense! And the Wikipedia definitions I gave are exactly has written in Wikipedia.

Re:Idiots

[cain]

Jesus calls for violence:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Re:Idiots

[couchslug]

It would be delightful if they just butchered each other, but their petty squabbles affect those of us who are religion-free.

Re:Idiots

[couchslug]

That wouldn't be worse, in terms of the long-term cultural struggle. Islam is Pan-Arabist at the core, which is an ETHNIC distinction (not everything is RACE, kids! Know the difference!) It is an ethnic and cultural war machine, as are most religions. Choose a side, there is no opt-out.

Before modern PC beliefs, it should be noted that great (in the sense of "large", not "glorious") struggles entail awkward methods, brutality, and lots of innocent casualties. Further, they cannot be waged any other way. This is unfortunate, but all great (in the sense of "influential", not "glorious") warfighters (Mohammed included!) understood this.

Had "innocent worship" been the over-riding concern, the Allies would not have won WWII. There is a time to take sides, and slay the other side until you win, because they are not more important than victory. If they are, kill yourself instead and save everyone else the bother.

Islam is such a durable religion because it uses effective methods to take and hold power. They route around tolerance the way Hitler routed around Weimar democracy (not all Nazi analogies are flawed).

Re:Idiots

[shutdown -p now]

That wouldn't be worse, in terms of the long-term cultural struggle. Islam is Pan-Arabist at the core, which is an ETHNIC distinction (not everything is RACE, kids! Know the difference!) It is an ethnic and cultural war machine, as are most religions.

Pan-Arabist, really? What about Ottoman Empire, or Persia/Iran?

Had "innocent worship" been the over-riding concern, the Allies would not have won WWII. There is a time to take sides, and slay the other side until you win, because they are not more important than victory. If they are, kill yourself instead and save everyone else the bother.

This implies that there is a war. I don't see why there is a need for it in the first place.

Islam is such a durable religion because it uses effective methods to take and hold power. They route around tolerance the way Hitler routed around Weimar democracy (not all Nazi analogies are flawed).

This is because our particular model of tolerance today is flawed, in that we tolerate the intolerant, and defend their right to attack the rights of others. It's a system which lacks any self-defense mechanism. That is what is broken about it, not the concept of tolerance as such.

There's no reason why we can't have rule of law and an open, free society which can nonetheless resist an assault by a culture that is opposed to those core values. It's definitely not a reason to "declare war" or outlaw that particular culture. We should just treat any manifestations of said culture, which directly attack our freedom and openness, as criminal.

Simply put, declaring oneself as a Muslim -> okay. Praying in a mosque - okay. Preaching that gays must be thrown off cliffs in that church -> not okay. If it just so happens that so many people who do the first are also doing the second, well, it's not our problem...

Re:Idiots

[jsepeta]

abortions might DECREASE if men didn't have to pay child support because men might not pressure women to have so many abortions.

Re:Idiots

[toddestan]

It would be one thing to be offended, but death threats? Do you really think the same situation would have played out if he had named himself "Jesus" or "God", assuming that they weren't banned?

I want

[Gonoff]

everything on the internet that does not agree with my religion removed from the internet.

Who will I start with...

erasure

[fyoder]

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?

If they have a great wall type firewall that everything goes through, they could filter the facebook traffic and replace the offending images with ones that had text reading "A fatwah is declared upon the creators of this disgraceful contest".

Re:erasure

[bersl2]

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?

If they have a great wall type firewall that everything goes through, they could filter the facebook traffic and replace the offending images with ones that had text reading "A fatwah is declared upon the creators of this disgraceful contest".

Good luck finding the original creators, unless just any scapegoat will do.

Also: BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH

Re:erasure

[WrongSizeGlass]

Also: BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH

Sorry, but that's ironically impossible.

I, for one, completely agree with Pakistan.

[Narcocide]

Wow for the first time ever the religious extremists in Pakistan and I completely agree - someone has simply got do delete Facebook.

Re:I, for one, completely agree with Pakistan.

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

I think they're primarily concerned that Facebook has been shopping their prophet's details out to spammers.

Re:I, for one, completely agree with Pakistan.

[zguy]

Vote me in. Nowhere near an extremist here. But I agree to get rid of Facebook!

This is the new age of the internet.

[pizzach]

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.

Re:This is the new age of the internet.

[stonewolf]

Naw.... I saw my first posting by a dumb ass moslem screaming about how we are all going to be killed in the great jihad blah blah blahdy blah blah back on usenet when the Internet was young and you could still have an arapnet domain.

This crap has been happening for centuries. Every time some poor bastard realizes that those fast moving lights in the sky were put there by us and that not one of their countries could do the same thing or when they saw the steam powered steel ships come into harbor and they realized that not one of their countries could... You get the picture. Contact with the west destroyed their image of themselves as a great culture so they have to kill us all.

Sad sick puppies.

Stonewolf

Re:This is the new age of the internet.

[russotto]

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?

We are. Well, not we personally, but techies. The people who come up with anonymous proxies, steganography, encrypted connections, and all the rest. Of course, there's black-hat techies working for The Man trying to undo all that.

This isn't the old Internet. We aren't living in the wild west anymore. Not everyone's sense of ethics line up.

Well, guess what. This ain't one of those situations where we can just agree to disagree and all get along. Someone's "sense of ethics" has to hold sway, and that of the other side has to be violated. I know which side I want to be one... do you?

Re:This is the new age of the internet.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Sad sick puppies.

Very, very true. While we're tossing around analogies, please let me tell you a fairy tale called The Infantada:

In a house lives a handful of hateful, ill-tempered little boys who are immature even for their young age. They scream and cry and throw tantrums because of their own puerile insecurities, and they are perpetually angry. They are angry even when they don't yell, but the voice of rage is often most frightening when it is spoken softly rather than screamed.

Their Mommy often tries to comfort them while being fair and firm, but they kick her in the shins and throw rocks at her. Then they move into their Auntie's house because Auntie gives them more money and candies and tolerates their bad behavior. They kick Auntie in the shins and throw rocks at her, but she patiently continues to appease them in the hopes that they will show as much love to her as she does to them. Boys, after all, will be boys.

Months later, the police show up to Auntie's house. She is lying naked on the floor, dead, her face disfigured with sharp knives and caustic chemicals found under the sink. The officer asks the little boys what happened, and they all shrug. It had not mattered who murdered Auntie, because all of those boys were equally complicit.

Re:This is the new age of the internet.

[kb_one]

The new Internet also allows for new tactics of protest. When people organize to post this type of offensive content all over the place the hardliners will find the Internet is shrinking and becoming less useful for their people. Are these types of protests basically trolling the hardliners?

Re:This is the new age of the internet.

[CAIMLAS]

"The wild west"? First off, the Old West was (mostly) a pretty dull place, except for the occasional killing or Indian war party - years apart, with (per capita) the death toll being well below what occurs in LA or Detroit on any given night.

As for child porn and Islam... if child porn were offensive to them, why do you not see them rallying against it? Images of the Great Paedophile himself are bad news resulting in world-wide riots; images of naked children in compromised poses don't get so much as a whisper. Why is that?

Third: the Internet of today is oh so much more tame than it used to be. Sure, there are a lot more illicit activities, but back then you could openly steal (ie directly from bank accounts) and get away with it. Things are a bit different now...

Re:This is the new age of the internet.

[stonewolf]

It took me a long time to decide to reply to you. I've replied to all of these points so many times that it is hard for me to make myself bother. But, you seem to be making an attempt at a rational response so I'm going to do the same.

Your first point about the flowering of Islamic culture between 800 and 110 AD is correct. The intellectual center of the western world at that time was Baghdad.

The video link you posted to support that was not a link to the entire video. The link picked out just the tiny part of the video that supported your claim about Badhdad. The rest of the video was about the negative, but pervasive, effect of religion on the history of science. After the section on Baghdad it went on to talk about how Imam Ghalazi lead Islam away from rationality and investigation into a form of fundamentalism that assumed that all answers were in the Qu'ran. He even convinced the entire Islamic world that mathematics is the work of Satan.

He then cautioned his audience about the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity in the US. He used examples to show that they are trying to go down the same path that Islam went down. The only difference is the name of the book Superstition is superstition no matter what book it is based on.

Islam has been in a nasty, mentally incestuous, dark age in which superstition has completely replaced reason and investigation ever since. deGrasses was warning us that we could be heading back into the same kind of dark age.

I suppose the crusades could have helped people accept Ghalazi's world view, especially when Islam was losing the crusades. You see the same thing in the US now that Islam has started crusading against us. A lot of people think this is happening because people have turned away from god. I've even met mental midgets who are claiming that the US Constitution was written by Jesus. They must not understand the difference between 200 and 2000 years.

As to the crusades. Why do you guys keep bringing them up? The crusades were carried out by a religious theocracy that was operating in a nasty mentally incestuous, system in which reason and investigation had been replaced by the superstitious belief that all answers can be found in the Bible. We are not those people. We did not participate in the Crusades. The simple fact that Mecca was not nuked withing 48 hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 proves we are not those people.

I think the trouble is that Islamic culture has been trapped in a deep freeze since the 1100s and you do not understand the rate of change, or the amount of change, that has happened in the western and asian cultures.

Israel. Oh my. Yes, I understand exactly what how the Palestinians feel about Israel. I do not understand why the UN established Israel. There is no question in my mind that the Palestinians suffered a grave injustice when that happened.

I have been thinking about this problem and studying it for many years. I believe that the desire to create a "happy ending" to the holocaust was one of the reasons it happened. Another reason was simply to acknowledge what was all ready happening. At the end of WWII the surviving Jews decided to take back the original land of Israel. At the end of WWII the UK was in no condition to continue to occupy Palestine and letting the Jews recreate Israel may have been seen as a way to get the same effect without having to spend any UK resources on the project. I also know that a lot of Christian Fundamentalists in the US supported the establishment Israel because that must happen to allow other biblical prophecies to take place. (Hey superstition gets into everything if you let it.) I also suspect that the UN believed that the Palestinians would not be able to stop the creation of Israel and were no real threat to Israel. And, it seems, from what I have been able to dig out of articles and commentaries that they didn't believe that the other Islamic states would take any meaningful actions to help the Palestinians.

History has shown that the Palestinians are in

interesting

[bihar]

these countries are strange big time

Re:I, for one, completely agree.

[badboy_tw2002]

I liked your first version better, it was more specific. B+ for the first, C- on the second for repetition.

Immature

[Palmsie]

No one should touch Facebook. If you can't handle a few pictures on the Intertubes, don't log onto Facebook (there, you win). If you can, you should have the right to go do that (everyone else wins). What a backwards place they are. I don't see protests about Raptor Jesus from Christian extremists. I say Facebook should leave it up like they do all groups.

Response to the ban in Bangladesh

[Orome]

What is nice to see is that there has been a protest against the ban by students and professors

http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=162813&cid=2

Unfortunately, this probably doesn't make for as exciting news as yet-another-theocracy-bans-facebook. A search on Google News for "bangladesh facebook" doesn't even throw up this link, and I haven't yet seen any mention of these sensible, logical voices on BBC,CNN etc.

Re:Response to the ban in Bangladesh

[santax]

Thanks for the link. Puts things back into perspective.

Re:Response to the ban in Bangladesh

[Orome]

Certainly not. But if an organization like CNN or BBC ran the story, it would give those sensible people more publicity, and it would help the Western world realize that there are moderate voices in the country. Otherwise all we end up with are snarky comments like "they should just start burkha-book".

Re:Response to the ban in Bangladesh

[couchslug]

"Unfortunately, this probably doesn't make for as exciting news as yet-another-theocracy-bans-facebook."

Because the non-Fundies will lose as usual.

Re:I, for one, completely agree.

[Narcocide]

Yea, stupid I know. there was posting lag and I thought it was actually the first post getting auto-filtered or something.

Start their own

[Dyinobal]

They should start their own social networking site called Burkabook and be done with it.

Re:Start their own

[CRCulver]

The burka is not part of Bangladeshi culture. Islam can be fairly critiqued on terms that apply to most of the Muslim world, but choosing a custom that is really particular only to Afghanistan and some surrounding areas and making it the symbol of the entire faith just makes one look uneducated.

Re:Start their own

[Threni]

> The burka is not part of Bangladeshi culture. Islam can be fairly critiqued on terms that apply to most of the Muslim world, but choosing a custom that is really
> particular only to Afghanistan and some surrounding areas and making it the symbol of the entire faith just makes one look uneducated.

They wear burkas in London, dude.

Re:Start their own

[Maestro485]

No, it should be called DurkaDurkMuhammadJihadBook.com

And their mascot is a guy in a bear costume.

Re:Start their own

[Timosch]

You mean like this?

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[masmullin]

"global warming" is a religion, too.

I pray to global warming so that my mommy and daddy dont get a divorce.

Bangladesh and Pakistan not in the modern world

[gweihir]

Not a surprise either. States that have a state religion are firmly rooted in the age of ignorance and oppression. Calling them primitives would be too kind.

Re:Bangladesh and Pakistan not in the modern world

[masmullin]

Calling them primitives would be too kind

can we call them integrals?

Re:Bangladesh and Pakistan not in the modern world

[Winckle]

"In God We Trust"

Re:Bangladesh and Pakistan not in the modern world

[Quiet_Desperation]

I've always found them a bit derivative.

As a proud American I find this outrageous.

[CompassIIDX]

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to contact the FBI about some naked cartoon images that might not be of legal age.

Re:As a proud American I find this outrageous.

[Merls the Sneaky]

I see you subscribe to the Australian politician point of view that depiction is the same as actual child sexual abuse material. Maybe you should report them to the AFP as well so the Great Firewall of Australia can censor the site.

Remember kiddies thought crime is still crime.

Re:As a proud American I find this outrageous.

[Maestro485]

Ever see the photos of naked Vietnamese fleeing a firebombing? Naked Asian kids running through the streets crying!

Of course, Vietnam was the last conflict with genuine journalism. If you had pictures of Iraqi or Afghani kids fleeing a predator drone naked (because their clothes have been burned off, as well as their skin), you'd be arrested as a sex criminal and imprisoned accordingly.

Re:As a proud American I find this outrageous.

[shutdown -p now]

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to contact the FBI about some naked cartoon images that might not be of legal age.

If you want to have as much fun as possible, don't forget to mention that the pics are of Aisha.

Re:Incoming

[spanky the monk]

Yep, Facebook too.

Flambait: No punani burka lovin'?

[tyrione]

Seriously, the three Abrahamic religions are all Persian created fairy tales that keeps getting newer revisions and being called The Word of Some Desert God.

They all suffer not just from being plagiarized myths/fables but a deep lack of Punani power in their Impotent Tree.

Re:Flambait: No punani burka lovin'?

[Sponge Bath]

...getting newer revisions and being called The Word of Some Desert God.

Similar to Apple's development strategy.

Re:Flambait: No punani burka lovin'?

[Maestro485]

Actually, Steve Jobs unsurprisingly ripped off of Disney's animated adventure, Aladdin.

Hell, I heard that Robin Williams was only chosen to be the Genie's voice after Job's declined, sensing the true power of an all knowing Desert God.

Bill Gates was typecasted as Jafar.

Re:Flambait: No punani burka lovin'?

[Foobar of Borg]

Similar to Apple's development strategy.

How dare you insult Apple, you filthy Microsoft infidel! Apple is a computer of peace! Kill the unbeliever!

Re:I, for one, completely agree.

[_Sprocket_]

Do you live in Pakistan?

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[LandDolphin]

global warming was behind the couch the whole time

Re:Ignorance

[$RANDOMLUSER]

It's the damn scientists who are at fault - if they'd only learn to see things from other people's perspective, this would be a perfect world.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm certain that if Muslims made fun of Christians tightly held cultural and religious beliefs there would be outrage from Christians.

You really need to read some newspapers from the Middle East. Seriously.

Yet another proof by demonstration...

[stonewolf]

that islam is having a very hard time dealing with the 16th century. I hate to image what will happen if it/they what ever, it actually comes into contact with the 21st century. Oh, yeah... that was what happened in 9/11/2001 and just a while ago in Times Square.

The question is which happens first? Either 1) these so called islamic "civizations" learn to accept basic concepts like "human rights" or 2) they finally become a real danger. By real danger I mean they actually set off a nuke in a western city, release a ton of nerve gas, set off a dirty bomb, start the black death 2.0, or do a bunch of little things that just really piss us off. Like say, killing the South Park guys.

If 1 happens first, then cool. Everyone gets to live. But if 2 happens, what then? Do we keep trying to bottle them up and worrying about whether it is safe to have lunch in the park today? Or, do we just start killing them? I think that is going to be a major test of *our* so called civilization.

My bet is that our great great grandchildren will be ashamed of what we do. But, I'm also betting that there are going to be very very few great great grandchildren who are raised as moslems.

IMHO, the belief in absolute truth is the greatest enemy of humanity. The belief in absolute truth is absolute evil.

Stonewolf

Re:Yet another proof by demonstration...

[couchslug]

"Or, do we just start killing them? I think that is going to be a major test of *our* so called civilization."

We join with anyone available and cut any deals to fight back, just as during WWII. (Hugs Commies, who had the right idea about what to do with religionists!).

IMO the "terrorists" are less a threat than Islam itself. Our new rules of engagement exclude fighting enemies who don't kill lots of us, so that's the sort we need.

Re:Yet another proof by demonstration...

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, the belief in absolute truth is the greatest enemy of humanity. The belief in absolute truth is absolute evil.

Would you say that that is absolutely true? ;)

Re:Yet another proof by demonstration...

[phantomfive]

Holy cow the fact that you got modded up to four just shows how much the mood has changed here on Slashdot just in the last year. If you said this a few years ago, you would have been down-modded like crazy and then a bunch of people would have insulted you for hating 'brown people' or something like that. Is it really that different just because Bush is out of office now?

Re:Yet another proof by demonstration...

[stonewolf]

Nope. :-)

Stonewolf

Re:Yet another proof by demonstration...

[stonewolf]

Nope, I've been pointing out the differences between western cultural values and their conflict with the values of the islamic cultures for a long time and I have always either been ignored or modded up.

I've asked the same question in different forms several times. Most people understand that this is not about race or ethnicity. It is about basic values.

Re:Yet another proof by demonstration...

[jbssm]

Just because you don't like to read it, it doesn't make it less true.

you don't like it, don't look

[swschrad]

the "blockers" can go right ahead. that's their right.

the blasphemers can go right ahead, that's their right.

don't know about everybody else, but my God is strong enough to enforce His own laws, and doesn't need piddly little sinners running around playing tin-star sheriff.

if they don't think THEIR God is that strong, then son, you is chasing the wrong star.

What about Utah?

[elucido]

Not a surprise either. States that have a state religion are firmly rooted in the age of ignorance and oppression. Calling them primitives would be too kind.

Are you saying that Utah a Mormon controlled state is currently being run by uncouth primitives? I think you are ignorant and religiously intolerant for passing judgement on cultures you know little to nothing about. Yes there are aspects of Muslim culture which are backwards and primitive, but there are just as many aspects of American culture which are backward and primitive.

Do you think our greed is good bigger is better sexist racist homophobic culture is any better? Are we better because we destroy peoples lives for money while they do it for honor, respect or something they value more than money? The action is wrong based on the fact that innocent people are harmed or is it only wrong because it's not done to increase profits?

I agree that we have a responsibility to evolve and help develop other cultures but we should not assume that our culture is "better", or that we know everything and cannot learn from other cultures. We can learn a lot from these cultures just as these cultures can learn from us and the problem we have as a society in the west is that we refuse to learn from other cultures but we demand other cultures learn from us.

On top of this we import the worst of our culture along with the best. So they'll get all the polluting Corporate personhood profit is everything mafia style political culture along with free speech and thats it? Look at China, they kept the worst of their traditional backwardness and merely added the worst of our culture on top of it and now they have the worth of both worlds. What they are doing right is they did end torture so thats a positive step but their culture in terms of their form of capitalism is even more destructive than ours.

No culture is superior unless you have a quantitive measurement not based on economic growth but based on the happiness of the individuals living under that culture.

Re:What about Utah?

[nedlohs]

Utah does not have a state religion, at least to my knowledge - do you have a citation?

The far better case for you argument is England.

Re:What about Utah?

[Xaositecte]

Dude, have you ever tried to get a cup of coffee in Salt Lake City? Place is run by barbarians!

Re:What about Utah?

[Sir_Lewk]

Are you saying that Utah a Mormon controlled state is currently being run by uncouth primitives?

Yes. Women oppressing primitives.

Re:What about Utah?

[belmolis]

Yes, I have drunk coffee in Salt Lake City. Many people don't drink it, and many restaurants don't sell it, but it is neither illegal nor unavailable. You can buy coffee beans in grocery stores and many restaurants do serve coffee. There are at least half a dozen Starbucks in Salt Lake City.

Re:What about Utah?

[unkiereamus]

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?

Re:What about Utah?

[Sir_Lewk]

There are more Starbucks in Philadelphia than all of Utah. I think that is pretty telling.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually go to starbucks, but the absense of starbucks somewhere is still a pretty strong indicator of primitisim to me.

Re:What about Utah?

[hedwards]

And the fact that Mormons don't drink coffee has nothing to do with it? Seems like a pretty benign thing to avoid, far less damaging that any number of things that the fine upstanding Christians of the US engage in.

Re:What about Utah?

[wirelessbuzzers]

To be fair, until recently there were more people in Philadelphia than in all of Utah.

Re:What about Utah?

[Sir_Lewk]

Feel free to check the number of starbucks per state against population densities of different states. Utah has far fewer starbucks than other states with approximately equivalent or far lower population densities. I only chose Philadelphia because I live there, not to make an unfair comparison.

Re:What about Utah?

[Sir_Lewk]

And the fact that Mormons don't drink coffee has nothing to do with it?

No, it has everything to do with it. That is the whole point.....

Re:What about Utah?

[bnenning]

Do you think our greed is good bigger is better sexist racist homophobic culture is any better?

Yes. Was that supposed to be a hard question? Are you seriously claiming that sexism in the US is remotely comparable to the pervasive misogyny of fundamentalist Islam? Or that occasional anti-gay slurs are comparable to government-supported stoning of homosexuals?

Re:What about Utah?

[shutdown -p now]

No culture is superior unless you have a quantitive measurement not based on economic growth but based on the happiness of the individuals living under that culture.

You already gave the most important criteria by which cultures are to be measured:

The action is wrong based on the fact that innocent people are harmed

This. The only thing that ultimately matters is how many innocent (defined as: "didn't harm anyone else") people are harmed.

And guess what? We don't behead apostates or stone to death for adultery.

Re:What about Utah?

[elucido]

Do you think our greed is good bigger is better sexist racist homophobic culture is any better?

Yes. Was that supposed to be a hard question? Are you seriously claiming that sexism in the US is remotely comparable to the pervasive misogyny of fundamentalist Islam? Or that occasional anti-gay slurs are comparable to government-supported stoning of homosexuals?

The USA has it's own problems. We have racism, we have Nazi's running around beating people up. We have plenty of problems and to pretend like we don't is to not look in the mirror. I'm not really comparing fundamentalist islam because I don't believe fundamentalist islam is the dominant form of Islam and I think you know it's not.

In general you have fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, and they are a problem. I can agree with you that they are a problem to be solved but you don't solve this problem by ridicule. You don't solve this problem by bombing and killing them while you ridicule them. This is no smarter than Bush calling them evil and declaring a crusade. This is no wiser than the Pope attacking Islam.

Sometimes it's better to focus on the good points in a culture, form alliances with the best and let the best of all cultures attack the worst of all cultures. You cannot defeat an ideology by ridicule, in fact ridicule has the effect of promoting the ideology because all you are doing is making them more isolated, so that they trust you less and despise you more.

Re:What about Utah?

[drinkypoo]

The USA has it's own problems. We have racism, we have Nazi's running around beating people up.

You're seriously arguing that some white supremacists furtively hiding from the law and occasionally handing out a beat-down on someone is as bad as state-sponsored execution of homosexuals? Nobody suggested that the USA doesn't have problems, but you're fucking ridiculous.

In general you have fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, and they are a problem. I can agree with you that they are a problem to be solved but you don't solve this problem by ridicule.

Yes, you most certainly do. When the whole world ridicules them for their religion, it deprecates it. This couldn't be clearer.

You cannot defeat an ideology by ridicule, in fact ridicule has the effect of promoting the ideology because all you are doing is making them more isolated, so that they trust you less and despise you more.

If they are more isolated, they will be less successful, because cooperation is a strategy for success, and isolationism is a strategy for failure. China would be running the world by now if they embraced the idea of interoperation. Instead, their superiority complex led to them becoming the planet's waste dump. Today, they do business with everyone, but because it happened so suddenly (it's not that long ago that China went from trading with nobody, except under duress, to trading with everybody) they have nothing in place to produce orderly progress, and no prospective allies (real ones, I mean, not trading partners) because anyone who helps China today has to be nervous tomorrow. Is there any reason not to do the same thing with Islam?

I was talking to this guy about buying his land when out of nowhere he drops this comment that what's wrong with this country is that we're "killing babies". And he goes off into all this Christian Fundamentalist shit, and starts telling me all about what needs to be done to fix this country. And at that moment, I lost all interest in doing business with him. And I'm talking 20 acres in California with springs for under $200k here, and it's a really beautiful piece of land, but the guy is a fucking wingnut. If he's so off-base that he thinks that abortion is what causes corporate malfeasance, how insane is this guy? Clearly I can't do any business with him. And I feel the same way, frankly, about any religious fundamentalist. Who knows what crazy shit will happen in their head that will affect me?

And how do they propose to do that?

[nurb432]

Is NOT the question. The question is why should we restrict our speech just because they are insecure in their religious beliefs? F-em

It's wrong to apply banning in 99% of cases.

[elucido]

Banning burkas is wrong. Banning websites is wrong. Banning ideas, books, clothing, all of this is wrong. I don't think banning does anything other than irritate and piss people off who might have been peaceable before. If you know a group of people like to wear burkas and you ban it, you just pissed them off and it makes them feel like you just banned THEM. The same can be said if you have millions of people who smoke weed legally and suddenly it's banned. It's the same as if this website were banned.

It's wrong because it fans the flames of hatred against US policy for no real gain politically, culturally, diplomatically, militarily. This accomplishes what?

Re:It's wrong to apply banning in 99% of cases.

[ErikZ]

You're absolutely right. Which is why they didn't Ban Burqas.

You're simply not allowed to wear a Burqa in a situation where someone is required to view your face.

"A ban could make it impossible for women who wear the burqa to receive any public services, from buying a bus ticket to picking up a child at school."

Things like a Driver License, which is a photo ID.

Re:I, for one, completely agree.

[Narcocide]

negative

Re:I, for one, completely agree.

[Narcocide]

Would I have gotten an A- if I hadn't typed "do" instead of "to?"

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[PopeRatzo]

Nice try at the package-dealing there, but "global warming" is a religion, too.

Considering last year was the warmest year since temperatures have been recorded, I'd say that if "global warming" is a religion, then it has a better record of prophecy than any other major religion on Earth.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[noidentity]

It's not censorship when we do it; it's making things better. It's only censorship when someone else wants to ban something we consider OK. Get with the program, man.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[victorhooi]

heya,

Well, actually no...haha...you're completely wrong.

As a Christian, I can tell you people make fun of us all the time. Heck, they've been doing it for around, what, 2000 years? And the Jews have probably suffered a lot longer. Thing is, every religion gets made fun of

I mean, seriously, has your head been under a sand. What do you think Raptor Jesus is? (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Raptor_Jesus) Or say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or how about all those bestselling books alleging Jesus was gay, or he had a family with kids, or some other ridiculous nonsense....

I actually find some of these funny, and a little comical (well, the FSM I think is actually clever/ironic, the Raptor Jesus meme is just a bit insipid/childish, but hey, it's the 4chan crowd, they're mostly 12-year olds kids).

You can either act like tantrum-throwing little kids, like some Muslims here are, or you can grow up and act like an adult, and shrug it off. It's not personal, they just don't believe the same things as you. And for a Christian, it just means they miss you on having God's awesome grace - so you should just pray for them, and be loving to them.

It's things like these that make Muslims look like backward primitives...*cue somebody declaring a fatwah against me*

Cheers,
Victor

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[PopeRatzo]

So, when most of the US population believes God and magic exist

It's not belief in God and magic that's the problem.

It's religion, which, when you come right down to it, has less to do with God and Magic than it does with power and control.

Re:Another analogy

[miknix]

I am Microsoft apologist, Microsoft Windows is my religion and The Great Blue Screen of Death is my God.

Writing Micro$oft with a dollar symbol is childish and makes it look like Microsoft produces software for the objective of making money $$, which is not true.

I for one, demand all dollar symbols removed from Micro$oft in all the Internets due to conflict with my strong beliefs.

funny muhammad pics?

[portnux]

Where are these, so I can "like" them?

Re:funny muhammad pics?

[gizmonic]

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammad-Day-May-20th-2010

Re:You must be a bigot if you think this is right.

[Xaositecte]

GP is a Troll, so don't mistake this for advocating his point of view.

I'm interested in the idea that you think there are cultures out there in the world that aren't organized around greed, selfishness, and making money. Where in the the world does such a thing exist? I'll grant you small, isolated communities - but any system large enough to have an economy at all revolves around greed and selfishness.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

If we made a website declaring Jesus Christ was a homosexual, wouldn't this anger Christians in this country and don't you think that certain individuals would want the website banned?

For one, most of them really wouldn't be bothered to the point of calling for a ban, and you're not going to see Christian leaders calling for the death of the webmaster, even Pat Robertson isn't that crazy.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[nedlohs]

I guarantee if you made a website declaring Jesus Christ was homosexual the US government would not block access to the website for the entire country.

And as proof see that this isn't blocked by the government: http://www.jesusinlove.blogspot.com/ and there are not riots in the street.

They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[elucido]

here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will.

That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter. The other 10% are just annoying as hell, but are not likely to stone you or blow themselves up. Muslim, however, seem to be a different thing altogether.

If you think something is a sin, (alcohol, for instance) why can't Muslims simply choose to not drink alcohol and leave everyone else alone? The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim. Parts of the Koran specifically say to convert or kill infidels, although other parts say to respect other's beliefs and leave them alone. While most would likely prefer to convert the infidels with words, and only a minority with force, the problem is that they feel they must convert us at all. The idea of "live and let live" just isn't in their vocabulary.

It is going to take something big to see change or a large amount of time, and frankly, I don't think the rest of the world is going to be patient enough to allow a large amount of time.

The Christian right is behind the banning of homosexuality. Look it up, Sodomy was a crime. Adultery was a crime. They used the law to make being anything but Christian illegal.

So no you cannot say these people aren't still trying. They want to ban abortion and gay marriage now.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[Pharmboy]

So no you cannot say these people aren't still trying.

That is the 10% I spoke of, who are mainly annoying. Meanwhile, gay marriage (and military service) is slowly moving forward, fewer people in the US are christian than ever, sodomy laws were held to be unconstitutional, etc. I didn't say it was paradise, but at least we are moving in the right direction with a little momentum and the majority of Jews and Christians are not trying to convert us all.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[corbettw]

Strictly speaking, no one is trying to ban gay marriage. They're trying to prevent it from happening. It's still annoying, but it's important to be accurate on things like this or else some asshole will pick apart that one mistake and ignore the rest of your comment.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[schwit1]

"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."

First off not all 'conservatives' think this way about marriage. Many feel that marriage is none of the government's business.

Secondly there are no big government conservatives or bigger government conservatives. Any real conservative thinks the government is far too big as it is and votes accordingly. The politicians that want big or bigger government might call themselves conservative. This doesn't make them conservatives.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[EdIII]

but at least we are moving in the right direction with a little momentum and the majority of Jews and Christians are not trying to convert us all.

Conversion is the least of our issues. I quite frankly have no problems with it and see it as an acceptable behavior in society. How can we say it is any different than the man on a soap box in the park telling us about the end times or the Great Squirrel Conspiracy (that's true btw)? As long as it is conducted in public, on public property, between consenting adults the behavior is non-threatening.

What *is* the problem is punishment . When people use interpretations of their religion to justify vigilante actions against you, outside of society's laws, to punish you for transgressions against their religion, that is extremely concerning. Equally concerning, are the attempts to subvert and pervert the laws of society through so-called political activism to enact non-secular laws in accordance with their religion.

Thankfully, America and Europe has largely evolved past such behaviors (like the Crusades and the Inquisition), and the people who insist on performing or advocating such actions are marginalized and punished according to the law when they act inappropriately. Society does not condone or encourage *any* of their behavior whatsoever.

However, America and Europe have enjoyed a period of peace of prosperity that quite frankly has allowed us the luxury of evolving to this state in the first place.

The Middle East has been without such an environment for a very long long time and is unarguably in the grips of a Dark Age. Groups and people that should be marginalized and punished for their actions are being taken seriously, they are getting their laws enacted, and are proceeding with a culture of punishment of *anybody* that offends their religious sensibilities. Intolerance and violence is breeding more intolerance and violence.

I don't know what the solution is, but as long as angry violent men control the Middle East we are going to continue experiencing the anguish they bring upon the rest of the world.

The problem was never Islam or the words of the Quaran. Every other religious text has passages in it, often misconstrued due to a lack of anthropological sophistication required to understand their meanings in their time, but the vast majority of other people practice these religions in the moderation required to integrate into society.

That's the problem with Islam; The way it is practiced. No moderation and in many situations merely a framework of justifications for violence that these men are predisposed to anyways.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[AK Marc]

First off not all 'conservatives' think this way about marriage. Many feel that marriage is none of the government's business.

I don't see any "conservatives for gay marriage" or "get the government out of marriage" signs at party meetings by the party that claims to be the conservative party. If they are out there, they are hiding pretty well.

Any real conservative thinks the government is far too big as it is and votes accordingly.

There is no "real" conservative anymore. Conservative is whatever the people think conservative is, and there are no small government conservatives.

I think you are upset that the Progressive Party (they call themselves Republicans) stole the "conservative" label from you. It's too late. The ship has sailed. And they took the English language with them. Republicans are conservative, and they want to make the government so large that it employs every Republican and the Democrats all starve (the Democrats want to employ all Democrats in the government and put the Republicans on welfare, so there's a massive difference between them).

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[compro01]

The general rules among the states laid out in federal and state law regarding marriages and contracts say "yes."

With the notable exception of the defense of marriage act, which will probably be found unconstitutional eventually, whenever there is enough of a controversy to get it to the supreme court.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[Archangel Michael]

I find it kind of funny that people promoting "gay marriage" are often atheists or at least agnostic. Why is this funny? Because "marriage" is a sacred institution, meaning it is of religious value only.

Additionally, those that promote Government being involved in marriage are beholden by that ideal to the Roman Catholic Church, which was the first time the "State" had any part of the "Marriage" institution.

And it is often as much as not, that when someone brings up polygamy into a conversation for "gay marriage", people supporting gay marriage are often against it. Even though historically there is much more evidence for polygamous marriages than gay ones.

My personal view is that government should get the hell out of sacred institutions, including rest on Sabbath (both Saturday/Jewish and Sunday/Christian) as "rest" days are a reflection of this sacred institution as well.

It is stupid that people bring up "religion" and hate every institution that it entails until it is something they actually want; Marriage, Resting, Holy Days (holidays) etc.

No, there is no hypocrisy at all!

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[kwoff]

However, America and Europe have enjoyed a period of peace of prosperity that quite frankly has allowed us the luxury of evolving to this state in the first place.

The Middle East has been without such an environment for a very long long time and is unarguably in the grips of a Dark Age.

Hmmm, I wonder how that happened.... Was it, "quite frankly", the Europeans and Americans?

"enjoyed a period of peace [and] prosperity" - sounds like your joints are rolled in propaganda papers. "as long as angry violent men control the Middle East we are going to continue experiencing the anguish they bring upon the rest of the world" - unarguably? or quite frankly?

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[Zontar The Mindless]

..."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.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[Pharmboy]

Because "marriage" is a sacred institution, meaning it is of religious value only.

Atheists get married too. Marriage is a legally binding social contract. It is a contract pledging to share everything, good and bad, and often to create offspring with each other only. While religion adds a dimension to marriage for those who participate, it is not the source of, nor the reason for two people to get married.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully, America and Europe has largely evolved past such behaviors (like the Crusades and the Inquisition), and the people who insist on performing or advocating such actions are marginalized and punished according to the law when they act inappropriately. Society does not condone or encourage *any* of their behavior whatsoever.

I bet the people in Afghanistan and Iraq would disagree there. I know, officially they were invaded to capture Osama and find those WMD's, and as soon as that's done, the Taliban and Saddam will be put back in control. However, even our Government here in Denmark has by now admitted that it's an attempt to force our ways of living upon them, instead of their own Muslim ways. Sure, WE think that our way of living is better than theirs, but needing sending armies over to force it upon them is pretty good evidence that they do not agree.

And just in case someone is going to claim that the civilians want us there, it's only the governments we are fighting, if that was really the case, we wouldn't need to kill civilians. Even when they say that they didn't attack civilians, they add "women and children were allowed to leave before the attack".

I guess there are no civilians on Slashdot then.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[GooberToo]

Because "marriage" is a sacred institution

Completely untrue. The history of "marriage" clearly shows it existed long before religion become entangled. The simple truth is, the ring which women fawn all over is actually buying them like a horse. That's the standard. That's why engagement rings are typically of value. If you deflower your horse - I mean women - either before or after marriage, then the ring is hers to keep as compensation for his loss of market value. Nothing says love like, "with this ring, I own you bitch!" And that's why the actual marriage band is typically of value, so in case you prematurely die, she has some means to care for your heirs.

In other cultures, a wife is worth several horses or other livestock. And legally speaking, they often had less worth and legal standing than horses or livestock. Likewise, the higher the social standing of the women, generally the more a women is valued. Which is to say, a women's worth was equaled only to the social ladder, to which she extended to the husband. That is, of course, after you've paid a dowry to compensate for all those years of rearing a worthless women.

In more modern times, in order to strengthen the family unit's cohesion, religion became entangled. Despite all the things religion has completely screwed up, this is one of those things they got right. A strong family unit enhances a village/city and culture's stability; making for a healthy society. A healthy, stable society makes for rich church coffers and filled seats. Well, okay, they got it mostly right. So contrary to the church's historically greedy angle on marriage, it did bring tangible societal benefits. This of course ignores the fact, only those in good standing with the church were entitled to marry; to which I refer you back to the filled church seats and tithing.

Realistically, these days, marriage is very much entangled with religion. Historically it specifically means a man and a women. A marriage encourages children and a stable home life. And to a largely agricultural/hunter society, this is very important. It is because of this potential contribution I don't have a problem with society contributing something back; discounted insurance, inheritance, so on and so on.

Historically, even during Greek and Roman times, homosexuality was not only permitted but widely accepted. Just the same, same sex marriages were simply not permitted because it provided not societal benefit. Simply put, not matter how much you put two penises or two vaginas together you're simply not going to have children. Period.

Is it because there is no historical basis, no religious basis, and no societal benefit, why I don't endorse same sex "marriage." Just the same, I don't see a reason why they can't have some other legal procedure/classification (example, "a joining") which provides many of the same benefits; such as health insurance (no insurance discounts), and emergency legal rights with their partner. So no, I don't see this as being on equal footing with marriage but I don't see a reason to keep them completely out in the cold either.

So next time you go pining away for old marriage principles, please keep in mind you just equated your wife to being a near useless piece of property whos only worth is a hole in the mattress, a cook, a maid, and a guardian for your heirs and bloodline; and at the end of the day, is still worth less than a horse or other livestock. The good news is, if she was not a virgin when you married her, a simple gold band is paying too much. Make sure you remind her of this fact when you present her ring.

Please keep in mind in most of my comments I've approached this from a historical perspective. Most of the above comments do not express my own views.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[mrops]

I don't know what the solution is

Education. Lots of it, at least two generations worth of education.

I grew up in middle east and a local joke goes like this,

A sheikh's driver brings his 18 year old son to his Shiekh
Driver: Can you get my son a good job.
Sheikh: Has he done some kind of formal education?
Driver: No, not really, actually he never went to school
Sheikh: Is he smart/talented
Driver: Yes he is very smart
Shiekh: Hmmmm.. that doesn't work out, cause if he wasn't smart, he would be perfect for the local mosque priest.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[Ihmhi]

Church marriages don't matter to anyone 'cept the people gettin' married and their God.

The only government involvement is in the license itself, which is an entirely separate thing.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[Pharmboy]

I don't see any "conservatives for gay marriage" or "get the government out of marriage" signs at party meetings by the party that claims to be the conservative party. If they are out there, they are hiding pretty well.

Libertarians. I am not officially Libertarian, although many of my views line up well with them (excepting foreign policy...) Smaller government, a federal government that only does what the constitution says it can, more power to the states (ie: schools), fiscal responsibility, separation of church and state, decriminalization of many drugs (it is completely silly to have marijuana illegal), and the government staying out of things like gay marriage. Actually, the government shouldn't be giving tax breaks to married people or for people who have children or for people who buy homes. If you want a progressive scale, I guess that is ok as long as it applies to everyone equally. Everyone should have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness, with the government never interfering with them unless the persons actions affect others.

That is a conservative stance. What the republicans are, well, I can't say, but it isn't conservative, it is more like bible thumping with lower taxes. We have gotten so far away from our real roots, that many people think that republican populism is the same as conservatism, but it isn't. Even Bush and his "conservative" congress spend our tax dollars like drunk sailors on shore leave, proving the point.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[AK Marc]

A marriage is a contract between two people. Why is it that the government decides some may enter it and others not? I'll give you a hint, it's not just coincidence it is drawn on the lines Christian leaders assert, making it a freedom of religion thing.

And church marriages aren't marriages if the people aren't married. If you don't want the government telling you you can't worship how you like, then they shouldn't interfere with who may get married.

But, from where I sit, those who whine the most about wanting to be able to pray in school and worship however they want with no government interference are the ones most vocal in wanting the government to interfere with others religious freedom. That just seems so hypocritical.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[AK Marc]

That is a conservative stance.

That's progressive today. It may have been conservative 30+ years ago, but not any more.

many of my views line up well with them (excepting foreign policy...)

What are their issues with foreign policy? I remember the "old" LP, and they wanted to abolish passports, abolish nuclear weapons, private toll sidewalks (even if they have tried to delete that stance from history, I remember when officials of the party said it was a logical conclusion of their abolition of the right to travel - as the right to property trumps travel in all cases). So I found myself falling exactly on the political spectrum as the LP, but without anything in common, other than making the military defense-only and getting the government out of private matters, but even then I couldn't agree with them because I'm for personal rights, and the LP wants states rights (as in, rights aren't guaranteed to the people, but they can be taken away by any state, and it's up to the people to make sure their rights aren't infringed in any state). And even the manner in which they do the military is different than mine, because I see the global scale needing policeman, and so working with the UN to provide troops would be necessary to a working planetary system, and the LP seemed to be against that.

So it came down to me being a libertarian without anything I can agree with in the LP national platform. Doesn't help that the LP seems to be the Teabaggers of the 80s and 90s.

Oh, and personally, I used a broader view of things. Paying $10 for early childhood education reduced $100 in costs later. But Libertarians are against paying for preventative anything. They'll pay for cops and prisons, but not drug and gambling programs to have the cops and prisons have less to do. I never could understand that. If the goal is "small government" then you need to make sure you aren't cutting of your nose to spite your face. And the LP seems to put dogma above efficacy.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[Ihmhi]

Fundamentalist religious people being hypocritical? SURELY YOU JEST.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[Pharmboy]

Your perspective and mine are likely not all that different. That is why I can't call myself a Libertarian, although my beliefs are "libertarian" in general. And to me "conservative 30 years ago" is the same as "conservative", as the beliefs haven't changed, only the label assigned to them. It is the republicans that need to change their label, not real conservatives.

As to national defense, I'm for putting most of our resources into defense only, although I agree in assisting the UN in common goals. I'm for *individual* rights, and think they are inherent, and that the government can't give you rights, they can only act to take them away, AND they shouldn't do that except in extreme circumstances (ie: you are convicted of a felony, etc.)

In my view, the government should act aggressively to insure that the playing field is level for commerce, not guaranteeing equal outcome, but equal access to markets. (no tax breaks for Dell or Walmart to open a new biz).

I'm not for tolls on sidewalks, (which would be something the State builds, not the Feds) as that is a shared convenience. Unlike libertarians, I have no problem with the government owning the roads, sidewalks, waterways and "shared" areas, as WE are the government.

In short, the Feds should do only that which the State can't do (National defense, treaties, interstate, etc.) and the State should do only what the county can't do (state highways, intrastate commerce, sales tax) and the country should only do what the individual can't do (schools, police, fire dept.) Obviously, there will be some overlap, such as State oversight of schools and police, etc.

On social issues, many would incorrectly think I was liberal, but it is about personal choice and individual freedom. I have no problem with gay marriage, for example, as it doesn't hurt anyone and gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their own happiness in a shared relationship that has the same protections under the law.

This is an oversimplification, of course. And while I've been to a Tea Party Rally, it did seem like they were more Republican than Libertarian.

Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you.

[AK Marc]

And to me "conservative 30 years ago" is the same as "conservative", as the beliefs haven't changed, only the label assigned to them.

That makes you conservative. The name has changed, and with it the definition. That you are purposefully using an outdated moniker for it indicates you are conservative, even if incorrect with the current language.

In my view, the government should act aggressively to insure that the playing field is level for commerce, not guaranteeing equal outcome, but equal access to markets. (no tax breaks for Dell or Walmart to open a new biz).

What about the government giving direct payments to a company owned by the son of the governor? I still don't know how Bush Jr didn't get in any trouble for all the questionable land deals and Texas Ranger's ownership issues when Clinton had every business deal for 20 years investigated. But then, payments to build stadiums are normal, not matter who owns them. It's like free market without the "free" or the "market." And it was all done by the "conservative" party claiming to be against big government. But then, I've lived only in TX and AK, so I couldn't tell you about the abuses of Democrats, we wouldn't elect any. You'd have to be from CA or IL for the good stories on them.

Sadly, the only "fix" is to redo the balloting system. But you'd need the two parties in charge to agree to it, and they know what would happen if the ballot didn't actively punish people voting 3rd party. They are actually pretty chummy, when it comes down to it, and will work together without problem to prevent the ballot from being changed to allow 3rd parties to get a foothold. So all the LP discussion is moot anyway.

They never learned

[linumax]

It's time for Islam to learn what Christianity learned hundreds of years ago.

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.

Re:They never learned

[walterbyrd]

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.

1) You don't know that.

2) In case you have not noticed, Christian nations have given up on theocracies centuries ago. So it appears that Christians have progressed beyond the ignorant barbarian stage, which is more than Muslims can say.

Re:They never learned

[twidarkling]

1) Yeah, we kinda do. There's *already* a militant subset of Christians who murder in the name of God, and even more who simply claim those they kill are sinful and perverted, and against God's order. If the religious had the kind of power they had then, then there'd be laws against the kind of stuff people are killing over (outlaw abortion, homosexuality, etc.), and it's very likely that the legal system would be skewed to be lenient on people who killed abortion doctors and "those homos." Further, as proven repeatedly throughout history, fanaticism begets fanaticism. As the Christians got power back, their views would become more extreme. Not to pull a Godwin, but that's exactly how the majority of the German population became okay with exterminating the Jews. They started slowly, and blamed the Jews for all their ills. Politicians in search of more power would do exactly the same thing. Hell, they do it NOW, they just don't use religion as a justification. There is absolutely no reason to think that Christians are any better than any other group in the regard of not abusing power.

2) Christian nations didn't "give up" on theocracies. The Holy Roman Empire crumbled when it got its ass kicked all over the map, and monarchies sprung up in its wake, and the Church still had a massive power base in those as holder of large amounts of land and money, and monarchs often had religious councilors.

Re:They never learned

[Cassius Corodes]

BTW the HRE was never more than a collection of monarchies (as were most 'states' at the time), and not particularity (for the time) religious. It had a primarily political beef with the pope that led to the pope vs anti-pope thing which they lost. The fallout from this lead to Protestantism later (you will note that the Germans were the first to jump on board). A better example would be the papal states which was a theocracy that got its ass handed to it by secular armies, and disappeared until the rise of fascism.

If you want examples of Christian led countries/movements doing crazy things take a look at Africa - e.g. Lord's Resistance Army doing all sorts of happy things under the banner of Christiandom - which is recognised as a terrorist organisation by the US. Witches are still brunt every now and then. This kind of thing will always occur under the right situations.

Re:They never learned

[Curunir_wolf]

2) Christian nations didn't "give up" on theocracies.

Never heard of Martin Luther, huh? How about when North America was founded by a bunch of religious fundamentalists that went there because Europe wasn't conservative enough, then ended up creating a government that wasn't allowed to enforce any kind of religion?

Re:They never learned

[infinite9]

(I'm a christian)

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

There's so many things wrong with this I don't know where to begin. First of all, Protestants don't have anything to do with the vatican. We had just as much trouble with them as everyone else. This was the whole reason for the protestant reformation. Are there any and have there ever been any protestant theocracies? I can't think of any.

In spite of all of the problems the catholic church has had, you can't blame the sexual abuse on their power. The cover-up was obviously enabled by their power. But it's silly to argue that all these priests are running around molesting children because the church empowers them to do these things. I would argue that the molestations are caused by two things. First, not allowing priests to marry, I think, makes them a bit loopy. Second, iirc, the catholic church used to encourage people who had deviant urges to become priests. The idea for this was that a life of celibacy was preferable to molesting children or being in a homosexual relationship. Of course, if the priests act on those urges, the end result is far worse for everyone else.

Next, why do you believe that christians today are exactly the same as christians from 200 or 300 years ago? Hasn't everyone changed over time? Something like ergot poisoning might look like demon possession to someone from 300 years ago, christian or not. BUt today, sensibilities are different. It's ridiculous to look at the behavior of christians from 100s of years ago and claim that christians today would act exactly the same way today if we just give them the slightest chance. If this were true, why aren't we burning people at the stake now? We don't need control of the government for that. How about blowing up abortion clinics? A few have been blown up, but why not 100s or 1000s? What I see with those is mostly peaceful protest, something that's supposed to be allowed.

The reason there are relatively few terrorist Christian militias or individual Christian terrorists is fear of harsh repercussions, specifically prosecution by the state.

Believe me, if something were to happen that made christians feel like we had to respond in a military or self-defensive fashion, none of us would fear the government in the slightest. History is full of christians standing up to the government to defend their faith and going to their death for it. And there would be no shortage of similarly minded christians today.

Re:They never learned

[ShakaUVM]

>>That never happened. Christianity never learned anything
>>They were thrown out of governments for good

Bullshit. What mythical atheist army removed the Christians from power? Think about that for second and realize how stupid that statement is. Given atheists were nearly non-existent at the time that the various protection laws for religion rolled around, which were a CHRISTIAN answer to a Christian problem, I find it fascinating that you would think that Christians got somehow thrown out of power.

>>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

Utter and total bullshit.

>>tldr; It is Islamic states (or generally religion+state) that are the problem, not Islam per se.

Islam is a large part of the problem. When a Christian runs around beheading people for not converting to Christianity, you can point out where they're wrong using the New Testament. When a Muslim does the same thing, the moderate has a hard time arguing it, because of the various passages advocating violence. Since they were written later in Muhammad's career, they take precedence over his peaceful passages (when he was still small and afraid of the Jewish communities in his area).

fuck-the-skull-of-jesus.mit.edu

[viking80]

MIT's webpage on iconoclasm http://fuck-the-skull-of-jesus.mit.edu/ prominently displayed this image for years with little uproar.

That image is truly orders of magnitude more insulting than anything any cartoonists have come up with of mohammed.

Where is the parity here? Are all christians just quitet duds? Freedom of press does not mean you have to accept any insult with no comment.

Comments welcome.

Could Ireland's blasphemy law have a use?

[bfree]

I wonder what it would take to get Ireland to join in the ban craze. Once upon a time simply providing abortion information would have done it, but now I guess abuse of the allegedly never to be enforced blasphemy law might be required. Thanks to Pakistan and Bangladesh for the inspiration.

Aren't hate sites banned in Europe?

[elucido]

I'm not from Europe but I heard that hate sites are banned. Can you explain how this is any different than banning pictures of Muhammad?

Re:Aren't hate sites banned in Europe?

[jbssm]

Big news. Europe is not a country. In some countries, the constitution forbids certain type of stuff. Like in German for instance, it's forbidden to bear any Nazi Symbol. Still, you just understand that we are talking about something terrible that happened about 60 years ago ... not something that happened almost 2000 years ago. I can give some more time to Germans to get in peace with their past ... but I'm not surely giving any more to Christians, Jews, Muslins, etc.

And yes, I also think the no blasphemy law in Ireland is simply ridiculous. But I'm glad to see that themselves find it ridiculous, and they continue to commit blasphemy happily and nobody even get's approached by the police because of it ... talk about one more law without any practical application just to keep lawyers with jobs.

Don't you miss...

[sajuuk]

Don't you miss the good old days when there was religious tolerance in the world? You know, the days before we had organized religion?

Re:Don't you miss...

[Dunbal]

In my opinion religion taps in to that same idiotic section of the brain used for sporting events, "national pride", and politics. It's not YOUR sports team that is winning and you have contributed ZERO to the effort. It's only "your" country through the accident of your birth - you didn't get to choose where you would be born. And as for politics, you might be ready to kill your neighbor because you think corrupt candidate A is better than corrupt candidate B, but neither of them give a shit about you.

Religion is the same thing. You didn't choose it, your parents chose it for you. You cannot affect it (if you try you are branded a heretic). And (insert god here) doesn't give a shit about you, but he is in constant need of a great deal of money because unlike the Fed, gods apparently can't print their own.

Re:Don't you miss...

[shutdown -p now]

Don't you miss the good old days when there was religious tolerance in the world? You know, the days before we had organized religion?

Back when you said "nothing personal" to a dude before poking him with a stone knife in front of a statue of your household's very own and personal god?

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[gyrogeerloose]

It's not belief in God and magic that's the problem.

It's religion, which, when you come right down to it, has less to do with God and Magic than it does with power and control.

And you should know, Your Holiness...

Seriously, though, you've got it absolutely right, and that's where this thing about blocking the Internet really comes from. A country with any level of theocracy in government is going to be concerned if it's citizens (or, perhaps more accurately, it's subjects) have access to opposing opinions and viewpoints. It's much harder to control an informed populace.

How will they do it?

[stumblingblock]

Kill it!!! With fire!!!

ALERT!!! 9,600,000+ images of Muhammad in Google

[Progman3K]

Granted maybe half a million of those are picture of Muhammad Ali, but there are literally millions of images of Muhammad on the Internet...

Makes you wonder how you could possibly remove them all... Of course you cannot.

And the more noise made about it, the more images there will be.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[thenextstevejobs]

I think you're missing the point. I don't think anyone here has a problem with Muslims finding cartoons offensive. I can't relate to their offense at this, but that's no surprise. The problem is this being used as a reason to block access to a huge website like Facebook such that no one in the country can access it.

If we made a website declaring Jesus Christ was a homosexual, wouldn't this anger Christians in this country and don't you think that certain individuals would want the website banned?

Given your example, I quickly searched Facebook to see if there was any results for "Jesus is gay". Lo and behold, there is a group with 200 people who like "Jesus is Gay" as well as an app which has a picture of Jesus open-mouth kissing Satan. I'm not someone who wants to throw the US in your face as the shining example of everything good and warm and fuzzy, but I am sure fucking glad this country isn't banning Facebook because of content such as mentioned above.

So lets not be hypocrites here, the majority of Americans support censorship for cultural reasons

I just find it hypocritical that people can switch from being for free speech in one instance but then when it's free speech that can apply to America suddenly we have to crack down and censor.

I seriously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. We have all kinds of nutjobs here in the US who want all kinds of shit taken down, banned, etc. Last I checked I could still pick up a copy of 'Howl' at the bookstore.

Are we for censorship or not?

I'm always against censorship. I don't see the hypocrisy that you're accusing vague swaths of Slashdot with for having regarding this issue. I am completely against governments limiting the materials available to their citizens based on ANYTHING, including religion, even if its the state religion, even if 99.99% of the population follows this religion.

Really bothers me that you're at +4 right now. Is everyone's brain dead this weekend?

So its a crusade?

[elucido]

Is the goal to rid countries of Muslims or to rid countries of extremists of all types?

errr what google did you query ??

[Archfeld]

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=lynchings+due+to+religion&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=lynchings+due+to+religion&gs_rfai=CEE2SowcDTJjdFY3CNvmm1NwHAAAAqgQFT9DdSUY&fp=3ef5d51874c14a12

Althought I do have to admit my google did not "say" anything about the topic either, but rather printed some text at the top of the page. I suppose you could have been using a text reader and querying 'some other google'

Re:errr what google did you query ??

[sycodon]

yeah... looked for the phrase. And that link didn't say anything about religion.

I think Religion burned people rather than hung them. And that hasn't happened in forever.

Take an anthropology class.

[elucido]

GP is a Troll, so don't mistake this for advocating his point of view.

I'm interested in the idea that you think there are cultures out there in the world that aren't organized around greed, selfishness, and making money. Where in the the world does such a thing exist? I'll grant you small, isolated communities - but any system large enough to have an economy at all revolves around greed and selfishness.

Many of the tribal cultures such as in Africa or the Native Americans had an economy based on sharing. It was basically a kind of socialism based around take what you need, and share the rest with the group. They also had sharing with other tribes according to gift giving rituals, very much like how we have Xmas rituals.

They did not have a concept of greed and this is one of the main reasons tribal cultures did not develop the level of technology and sophistication, or the kinds of weaponry. Greed is something which had to be taught to people. When you barter it's a lot more difficult to be greedy. When you live off the land and everyone has plenty of food and water theres no reason to be focused on greed.

Greed came about in Europe because of scarcity. At some point in time it made sense to be greedy because of the harsh environment. There was no tropical environment so there were entire tribes of Europeans who existed in a life where they basically were Vikings, or Pirates, and would survive by killing other tribes and robbing them with advanced weapons. This loot and plunder mentality is where greed came from. It came from the fact that some cultures were experts at making weapons, and this is because their survival didn't depend on farming but depended on killing human and non-human animal.

The cultures which could farm the land did not have to live like this. They simply worked the land and the land gave them unlimited food supply. The cultures who had no food had to go from place to place killing, looting, plundering, and over time they became specialists in this way of living.

It's just a fact that some cultures never developed good weapons because they never needed them. They never had big wars because they never faced the type of desperate situations where killing was the only way to survive. So these cultures never developed the concept of greed.

Selfishness is a part of every culture, greed isnt.

Re:Take an anthropology class.

[malice]

They did not have a concept of greed and this is one of the main reasons tribal cultures did not develop the level of technology and sophistication, or the kinds of weaponry. Greed is something which had to be taught to people. When you barter it's a lot more difficult to be greedy. When you live off the land and everyone has plenty of food and water theres no reason to be focused on greed.

Ah yes, and in that anthropology class, you will learn to embrace The Noble Savage myth like so many others.

Re:Take an anthropology class.

[couchslug]

In other words, they lost the social evolution battle to superior systems.

Re:Incoming

[jbssm]

Stupidity is not only found in religion.

Yes, but in religion you always find stupidity.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[fredmosby]

I think I speak for most people on slashdot when I say we are against any form of censorship.

Gratitude

[Shoten]

No doubt Allah will show his gratitude to the people of Bangladesh this summer, as monsoon/tropical storm/hurricane season arrives.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[ChinggisK]

I'm certain that if Muslims made fun of Christians tightly held cultural and religious beliefs there would be outrage from Christians.

You must be new here. In threads on this site discussing Christianity it is almost guaranteed that someone will refer to the Christian God as the 'sky-daddy' and Jesus as the 'undead zombie Jew'. Christians and Jews are constantly ridiculed, we get over it.

good riddance

[alienzed]

if you don't like it, ignore it and most certainly don't make it frickin' international news. Just don't join that facebook group, or create your own facebook group against the offending group. If cow worshippers acted like this and wanted to stop the rest of the world from eating cows, they will kill all cows. But no that's stupid...

Re:Another analogy

[jack2000]

Death is my God.

Come right in! You'll fit perfectly with all of our friends from the religions of the desert. We have pain and suffering BBQ Saturdays!

Re:Belief in absolute truth..

[bluebaron]

The belief in absolute truth, and more specifically, its ability to be discovered by man is the foundation of science. Without the belief that there is one truth, science cannot be done. There can be no repeatability if the experimental results of a Hindu is different from the experiment results of a Buddhist for a given test. What would you have us believe? Relativism is difficult to define without running into paradox, some of which is evident in your post. You believe the belief in absolute truth is absolute evil, which sounds rather like an absolute statement.. The belief in absolute truth is not evil. It is the most rational way to view the world. Violent destruction of others who disagree with you over that absolute truth could certainly be considered evil.

Why stop at facebook?

[walterbyrd]

I can go to images.google.com, or images.yahoo.com, or -probably- a thousand other sites, and see images of Muhammad all day.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can either act like tantrum-throwing little kids, like some Muslims here are, or you can grow up and act like an adult, and shrug it off. It's not personal, they just don't believe the same things as you. And for a Christian, it just means they miss you on having God's awesome grace - so you should just pray for them, and be loving to them.

It's not tantrums nor censorship my friend, it's a defensive mechanism. In fact, I think these actions (the blocking of FB) shows that the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh knows the sort of people they're dealing with; unlike a certain former American regime.

By eliminating the source of their grievances (albeit, in a duct-tape kind of way), they bought some time. Perhaps the governments are just hoping for the whole thing to just go away after a couple of months. It has been proven that people have shorter term memories nowadays, especially when it comes to some Internet junk.

The thing that quite a few of those from the glorious, righteous, and good-humoured "Western civilisation" seem to forget is that these things are sensitive to Muslims. I'm sure that when this issue dies down, yet another "artist" will get the bandwagon rolling again "in the name of freedom of speech". The thing I don't get is that aren't there other things that require such "artistic" approach other than a particular religion's prophet?

The fact of the matter is that, most Muslims don't really care what your belief (or lack of one) is. They just want to be left alone and free to practise their religion. When someone does something like this, it's perceived as a provocation... and for what? So that some so-called artist can have their few weeks of fame.

The funny thing is that you label Muslims as barbaric, backward primitives. Have you seen the response to these obnoxious cartoons from the birth place of Islam in Mecca and Medina? What? There are none? You gotta be kidding me! Surely those barbaric, backward Islamic Arabs would be wielding swords and beheading all westerners around them by now!

And to touch on your "bestsellers" "poking fun" at Jesus Christ... they just reflects on the kind of society consuming such "literature", I'm sure that a huge majority of those sales came from Muslim countries. You know how they really hate religions other than Islam... yeah right!

You'd be surprised at the numbers.

[syousef]

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?

You're being naive. The extremists strap explosives to themselves and push the button. They mistreat the girls and women in their own families in every way possible including their own children. Up to and including forced marriages, stonings and honour killings.

You see when you have "faith" instead of being guided by reason, all bets are off. It's not just Islam.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Oh shut up. Thats liberal nonsense.. and believe me.. I'm a liberal.

You're not dealing with reality.

In American culture we criticism Christians and Jesus all the time. We've been doing it for decades in the arts. Ever hear of a great man named George Carlin?

I mean what fucking planet do you live on? Are you an American? Do you even fucking know our culture? South Park which was recently threatened with death by Muslims (Terrorists) over a Muhammad cartoon. South Park only exists as a TV show because they originally made an underground animation that depicted Jesus fighting Santa Claus, and ridiculed "Kyle" for being Jewish... and "Cartman" for being fat.

Hell we have a LONG history of mocking things in criticism, because we have a history of free expression. If Muslims cant deal with that... then in great American fashion, I will speak for America and say "Go Fuck Yourself"

Sinead O'Conner. Look her up.

Jesus FUCKING CHRIST... I hate people who stand up for fucking the muslims who have no tolerance of others. Why are you so willing to give up your beleifs for theirs? They will NEVER meet you half way, so you give them exactly what they want? You fucking coward.

Stand up for OUR ideals... .not their ass backwards intolerant ways.

We may be intolerant and not perfect in our own ways.. but it is an evolution of OUR culture.... which is light years a head of theirs, especially when you realize how slow we as a culture were able to evolve ourselves. What we're seeing is how far they are behind and their intolerance is not our fucking problem.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[walterbyrd]

If we made a website declaring Jesus Christ was a homosexual, wouldn't this anger Christians in this country and don't you think that certain individuals would want the website banned?

That is an inaccurate comparison. Muslims are not having fits about Muhammad being portrayed as a homosexual. Muslims having fits about Muhammad being portrayed at all. Why not compare apples to apples?

Consider the show "South Park" Jesus is a regular character. Are Christians up-in-arms about it?

And frankly, I am very certain that you would not see several days of rioting, with several people killed, if Jesus was portrayed as a homosexual.

Muslim perspective?

[iONiUM]

There is a predominately anti-Muslim tone in any of these Muslim related articles on /. I have a few friends that are Muslim, but none read /., and they are all quite liberal (and do not agree with the fundamentalists who have such ridiculous ideas such as banning facebook).

So, where are all the /. Muslims to defend the fact that most people in that religion (I'm making an assumption here) are not radicals? It would be good to get some of that perspective, lest /. falls into some sort of Muslim-hating trap that America is so close to achieving (note - I'm posing no opinion here on what "Muslims" have done "to" America over the years, merely observing a trend).

Re:Muslim perspective?

[ErikZ]

If they're quite liberal, then they won't care about the posting of Mohammad on Facebook.

It would be good to get some of that perspective, lest /. falls into some sort of Muslim-hating trap...

Oh no! Not the Muslim-hating trap! For once the site falls into that trap it will permanently be... uh... what happens again?

You might want to cut back on your rhetoric.

Re:Muslim perspective?

[iONiUM]

What happens if I don't cut back on my rhetoric.

Anti-Outrage sunglasses required

[SuperKendall]

The obvious next step is mandatory fitting of all extremist Muslims with Anti-Outrage Sunglasses, a close sister of the Anti-Peril sunglasses from Hitchhiker.

The moment someone with said glasses is about to see an image of Muhammad, black goes the viewport!

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[hedwards]

So, the religion with the most resources, best access to advanced weaponry and generally most privileged position in the world thinks it has it tough? Yeah, I'm totally shocked that people of other religious viewpoints find you guys to be so stuck up, arrogant and generally spoiled. Perhaps not making those sorts of proclamations from such a privileged position would help heal the wounds.

Re:Here's a better idea...

[OldHawk777]

Let's totally unplug all backwards theocracies from the internet including the religious gangs in the US, EU, RU....

We could provide an internet cast-system: One for the religious-devout dogmatist, One for the plutocratic mega-entitled-lomaniacs dogmatist, One for the general population of all other murderous-nutty-extremist.

I like your thought, but it needs some work. It does not go far enough to protect free and reasonable people, from the "holier and better than thou" mental and emotional cripples around the world (US, EU, RU... Iran, Arabia, Israel, Vatican... Enron, BP, Wall Street, DC... ).

And

[mahadiga]

Can't Muhammad protect himself?

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[mjwx]

As a Christian, I can tell you people make fun of us all the time. Heck, they've been doing it for around, what, 2000 years?

And how conveniently did you forget about that about 800 year period where you send people off to kill and die in order to capture foreign lands where your imaginary friend had a son to control trade routes under the auspices of serving your imaginary friend. There were about six of these.

Or there was that Spanish mob, I forgot what they were called but no body expected them. Where it was punishable by torture or death simply to have another religion or not follow the accepted religion to an appropriate level, that went for about 150 years.

Letters of marque were written about anyone of note who disagreed with you, be they a queen, philosopher or astronomer.

Lets not get into the involuntary immolation of wicca shall we?

Keep playing the victim card good sir.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[mjwx]

For one, most of them really wouldn't be bothered to the point of calling for a ban, and you're not going to see Christian leaders calling for the death of the webmaster, even Pat Robertson isn't that crazy.

He would be that crazy, even the pope would if he though he could get away with it. The point is that the Christian church has not got enough power to call holy wars on things they don't like. Islam is pretty much in the same boat with so many splintered factions (sunni's fighting shiite's) so no one takes this stuff seriously except for the Anti-Islam crowd who blow this crap out of proportion as undeniable evidence of their nefarious evil.

Remember, when the church had enough power they would order entire kingdoms to war for the holy lands (and the trade routes contained within). Torture was approved, mass murder/relocation of other religious groups (no one expected the people who did this). Don't think that Christianity is any better then Islam, in fact we'd need all the current Islamic wars to continue for another 70 years before we've equalled the damage done by the Spanish Inquisition. Fortunately that was a mistake we have learned from and I don't expect it to happen again.

Re:Belief in absolute truth..

[stonewolf]

Oh wow! You just demonstrated a total lack of understanding of science. Science understands that there can never be a statement that can be taken as anything but an approximation based on the current best evidence. There can be no absolutes in science.

You should read the Diamond Cutter Sutra and then think about what I said. The Buddha said it 2500 years ago much better than I will ever be able to say it. But, here is a shot at it...

I said it the way I said to get the idea across in as few words as possible and in the hope that people would think about it. The previous poster got the joke, and the point.

You at least get the opportunity to come to an understanding of science.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[syousef]

Or how about all those bestselling books alleging Jesus was gay, or he had a family with kids, or some other ridiculous nonsense....

No. Much more believable is that the son of the creator came down in the form of a man to get persecuted and killed which somehow saves all men from their sin (including original sin which they're at fault for even though they're born with it) and that in memory of this he comes down and inhabits a buscuit and some wine which magically become his body and blood.

OMG!

[umask077]

So these religious leaders are worse then my children. OK They blocked facebook, wikipedia, flikr, and youtube. Tell the ok, we you feel like your a big boy and can come back and play nicely with others you can have these websites back.

If they want to set themselves back(I'm only referring to Wikipedia here) then let them. If you can't play nicely with others go sit in the corner and sulk. Your in timeout.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[ErikZ]

The point is that the Christian church has not got enough power to call holy wars on things they don't like...

How do you know?

Yes, they can't do it like they did in the old days, through the power of the Kings. But it seems to me that the only reason you don't see them declaring a Holy War on anyone is because they simply haven't. Not because they can't.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[bnenning]

Really bothers me that you're at +4 right now. Is everyone's brain dead this weekend?

It's the enemy-of-my-enemy effect, combined with taking cultural relativism to an idiotic extreme. US conservatives don't like Muslims (often because they unquestioningly obey the *wrong* holy book), so many liberals feel compelled to defend them. This despite the fact that fundamentalist Islam is one of the most illiberal misogynistic anti-gay cultures in the world. Yes, even worse than Utah.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[mjwx]

How do you know?

Yes, they can't do it like they did in the old days, through the power of the Kings. But it seems to me that the only reason you don't see them declaring a Holy War on anyone is because they simply haven't. Not because they can't.

You have even less evidence then I for your theory. I can at least call upon the fact that they haven't been able to start a war, let alone stop one in the last century. Right now the Christian church's power is at such a low that they cant even cover up the indiscretions of their own members. Instead they are asking us to ignore paedophile priests rather then disappearing the situation as they would in the good old days.

The church has very limited power over states today, power over states was the only thing they had previously that could compel other states.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[SakuraDreams]

And how conveniently did you forget about that about 800 year period where you send people off to kill and die in order to capture foreign lands where your imaginary friend had a son to control trade routes under the auspices of serving your imaginary friend. There were about six of these.

The roots of the Crusades were also political and economic i.e. secular. People paint a very simplified picture of the Crusades, yet half of Europe fell to Islamic invasion at one stage.

Or there was that Spanish mob, I forgot what they were called but no body expected them. Where it was punishable by torture or death simply to have another religion or not follow the accepted religion to an appropriate level, that went for about 150 years.

Whose influence was also exaggerated and whose death counts were probably less than those of secular courts, not to mention that it only ran in handful of the Catholic European states. Oh yes, English Protestant Propaganda you say? Once again politically inspired?

I'm not saying these things did not happen but they were not as bad as depicted and not done for entirely religious reasons meaning that without Christianity Europe and the Muslim world would also have clashed after all the Babylonians and Greeks also clashed etc.

Lets not get into the involuntary immolation of wicca shall we?

Keep playing the victim card good sir.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[SakuraDreams]

Such ridicule is the work of uneducated, uncivilised, barbarians too. Educated, cultured, civilised people don't resort to such immaturity. LOL.

Banning Burkas is right - banning ski masks is ok

[gadlaw]

The religious female slave/chattel thing doesn't even have to enter into it. Burkas should be banned for the same reason as any face hiding clothing is banned - public safety. It's harder to sneak guns and suicide vests around if you can't be wearing your Burka which somehow is allowable for the cowardly jihadist religious minded when it suits them crowd. Same as ski masks aren't allowed in the normal course of events except on ski slopes. Simple as can be.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[SBFCOblivion]

or he had a family with kids, or some other ridiculous nonsense....

I honestly don't understand why that is classified as nonsense and even gets some people up in a tizzy (not you, others I've met). Is it only because it would mean the man had sex with someone?

Re:Banning Burkas is right - banning ski masks is

[stdarg]

The religious female slave/chattel thing doesn't even have to enter into it. Burkas should be banned for the same reason as any face hiding clothing is banned - public safety.

I agree it doesn't have to enter into it, but why shouldn't it?

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[Curunir_wolf]

Nice try at the package-dealing there, but "global warming" is a religion, too.

Considering last year was the warmest year since temperatures have been recorded, I'd say that if "global warming" is a religion, then it has a better record of prophecy than any other major religion on Earth.

You should stick with calling it a religion, then, considering that as a scientific theory, it would have to rank dead last at predicting outcomes.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[elucido]

If we made a website declaring Jesus Christ was a homosexual, wouldn't this anger Christians in this country and don't you think that certain individuals would want the website banned?

For one, most of them really wouldn't be bothered to the point of calling for a ban, and you're not going to see Christian leaders calling for the death of the webmaster, even Pat Robertson isn't that crazy.

The Catholic church does not like any website, book, or expression which contradicts their official story of Christ.

What if Hitler were the savior?

[elucido]

A site which said Hitler were the savior would probably be banned quick, at least in European countries.

Re:What if Hitler were the savior?

[nedlohs]

The United States isn't a European country. And yes Europe has less free speech than the US, though the US is working hard to get to their level.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[Virak]

"Insightful"? Are the mods on crack again*? Your claims are demonstrably false by anyone with the slightest clue about the situation. The content they've been blocked over is "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". As Wikipedia states:

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was a protest against those who threatened violence against artists who drew representations of the prophet Muhammad. It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, "201" by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for the segment. Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that "everybody" create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech.

But yeah, it's totally intolerant Internet bullies harassing poor little Muslims who just want to be left alone. Yes, they're sensitive about it; that's the whole damn point. They're sensitive to the point of making death threats over a cartoon that doesn't even actually show him at any point. The same episode showed the Buddha doing lines of coke, how many death threats do you think they got from Buddhists? This sort of "sensitivity" isn't something to be respected, it's something that needs to be thoroughly purged from humanity. They need to grow the fuck up and realize that the world is offensive, and murder is not a valid response to this.

*Trick question: the mods are always on crack.

Re:Here's a better idea...

[shutdown -p now]

We'd need an RFC for that - the "religious bit" in packet headers, alongside the "evil bit".

Any takers?

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[elucido]

Really bothers me that you're at +4 right now. Is everyone's brain dead this weekend?

It's the enemy-of-my-enemy effect, combined with taking cultural relativism to an idiotic extreme. US conservatives don't like Muslims (often because they unquestioningly obey the *wrong* holy book), so many liberals feel compelled to defend them. This despite the fact that fundamentalist Islam is one of the most illiberal misogynistic anti-gay cultures in the world. Yes, even worse than Utah.

I'm not defending fundamentalism. I'm defending religious freedom. I don't like the Christian or Muslim fundies, they are both equally crazy in my opinion. But this isn't about fundies, this is about insulting Islam as a religious institution by going and vandalizing their sacred prophet.

This is provoking a reaction and actually serves to further radicalize the moderates and mainstream Muslims. It's just not accomplishing or helping anything.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[snowgirl]

Ahem... it's MAGIC sky daddy.

A "sky daddy" alone would just be silly!

It has nothing to do with politics.

[elucido]

Oh shut up. Thats liberal nonsense.. and believe me.. I'm a liberal.

You're not dealing with reality.

In American culture we criticism Christians and Jesus all the time. We've been doing it for decades in the arts. Ever hear of a great man named George Carlin?

I mean what fucking planet do you live on? Are you an American? Do you even fucking know our culture? South Park which was recently threatened with death by Muslims (Terrorists) over a Muhammad cartoon. South Park only exists as a TV show because they originally made an underground animation that depicted Jesus fighting Santa Claus, and ridiculed "Kyle" for being Jewish... and "Cartman" for being fat.

Hell we have a LONG history of mocking things in criticism, because we have a history of free expression. If Muslims cant deal with that... then in great American fashion, I will speak for America and say "Go Fuck Yourself"

Sinead O'Conner. Look her up.

Jesus FUCKING CHRIST... I hate people who stand up for fucking the muslims who have no tolerance of others. Why are you so willing to give up your beleifs for theirs? They will NEVER meet you half way, so you give them exactly what they want? You fucking coward.

Stand up for OUR ideals... .not their ass backwards intolerant ways.

We may be intolerant and not perfect in our own ways.. but it is an evolution of OUR culture.... which is light years a head of theirs, especially when you realize how slow we as a culture were able to evolve ourselves. What we're seeing is how far they are behind and their intolerance is not our fucking problem.

So because I'm not Christian I have to be a liberal? I guess thats how you make your political calculation? Thats good to know. Now we know that the Christian fundamentalists control the Republican party, and because of this I will not be voting for them.

My opposition to the strategy of ridicule and irritation is that it does not serve any military, or diplomatic objectives. It's just plain stupid to go and ridicule some people who are already suffering and dealing with having bombs dropped on them, now you want to make fun of their God and call them uneducated uncouth barbarians? How does that make us look?

When Americans say Jesus had a wife, that Jesus had kids, that the dead sea scrolls tell the true story, then the church gets up and arms and wants to band the Davinci Code. When the subject of child pornography is brought up all logic is thrown out the window, suddenly censorship of stuff like cartoon images is okay, suddenly even fake child pornography has to be banned, but of course it's still legal to read stories about child rape because text can't be banned, at least not yet, but wait Americans never try to ban anything right?

What about in Europe where hate groups cannot even make websites without being banned. That means their freedom of religion is being diminished along with their freedom of speech. I don't really have to agree with any of these groups of individuals to know when they are being censored, or that their liberty is being diminished.

We cannot claim that it's wrong for Islam to ban cartoon images of the prophet when we condone banning cartoon images of child porn. Either we believe in freedom of expression or we don't, there cannot be these little exceptions in our culture but then we expect other cultures to not have little exceptiosn of their own?

Australia has outright censorship of websites on a massive level. Most European countries ban websites too. The USA is on a child pornography witch hunt and the websites along with the evidence is banned. So lets accept that no country has absolute freedom of speech or expression except maybe Japan and look at how the western countries are complaining about them?

I just think it's very hypocritical that in one article you see western society condemning Japan for not banning something, then in the very next article condemning the entire Muslim world for banning something. I don't think this is accomplishing anything at all. Unless you can list the objectives you and others who agree with your views are accomplishing how can I possibly take you seriously?

Re:It has nothing to do with politics.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I dont know what the fuck you just said, but its nonsense.

A) I'm not a republican.
B) I'm a fucking atheist!
C) I'm a progressive independent that probably gives a fuck load more about humanity than you do. The difference is, I have thought about "Their" point of view.. and their point of view is fucking counter progressive, and counter independence. There is NO FUCKING WAY I will ever support the idea of "giving in" to their muslim wishes, if it means revoking an individuals right to criticize them.

So whatever else you wrote? I'm not reading it. It may be brilliant, it may not. But your first few sentences were dead wrong and typical.

I'm saying the USA has taboos too.

[elucido]

If we made a website declaring Jesus Christ was a homosexual, wouldn't this anger Christians in this country and don't you think that certain individuals would want the website banned?

That is an inaccurate comparison. Muslims are not having fits about Muhammad being portrayed as a homosexual. Muslims having fits about Muhammad being portrayed at all. Why not compare apples to apples?

Consider the show "South Park" Jesus is a regular character. Are Christians up-in-arms about it?

And frankly, I am very certain that you would not see several days of rioting, with several people killed, if Jesus was portrayed as a homosexual.

Our taboo is cartoon images of child pornography. Most everyone considers it to be gross and for this reason alone it's banned. How is that any different? If somebody posted a computer generated image of child pornography of facebook then facebook would be banned by the federal government.

How is it any different logically? It's not. It's still the same behavior just a different taboo.

Re:ALERT!!! 9,600,000+ images of Muhammad in Googl

[shutdown -p now]

There is 612,000 images specifically of Prophet Muhammad, for those who are interested. Maybe someone should tweet it ...

Christianity has NOT yet learned the lesson

[aepervius]

If you think Christianity as a whole has learned its lesson (or at least the FUNDAMENTALIST part of it), you are deluded. Have a look at Texas, at Dover, over creationism, or the various other attempt to equate the US with a "Christian" nation. It may be that the huge majority of Christian are not such extremist, but SO IS the huge majority of Moslem ! And in both case (facebook banning or Dover) it is the extremist which scream the loudest we are hearing.

That said I fully agree with your last paragraph.

Ridicule doesn't accomplish an objective.

[elucido]

If the goal is to promote freedom of expression then you have to team up with progressive Muslims and fight for freedom of expression GLOBALLY. You cannot do that if you go after their most sacred taboo, how exactly do you expect to win support?

This would be like Islamic clerics deciding to choose to complain about the USA's child porn laws, or complain about the pedophile priests in the Vatican. This doesn't really reduce tensions, it increases tensions, and thats the opposite effect you would want for diplomacy or for accomplishing military objectives.

I just don't see how it's a good idea to increase tensions for no real reason. If there is some legit logical reason other than "Our God is bigger than theirs" and "Our culture is better" then I'd like to hear it. But if thats the only excuse for ridiculing them, then it's clearly stupid.

Re:Banning Burkas is right - banning ski masks is

[elucido]

The religious female slave/chattel thing doesn't even have to enter into it. Burkas should be banned for the same reason as any face hiding clothing is banned - public safety. It's harder to sneak guns and suicide vests around if you can't be wearing your Burka which somehow is allowable for the cowardly jihadist religious minded when it suits them crowd. Same as ski masks aren't allowed in the normal course of events except on ski slopes. Simple as can be.

Then ban it on airplanes or in certain public places. Don't ban it in the entire country. That is just intolerant. I'm not promoting burkas but to ban it completely? Once again what does that accomplish?

If you think it will keep terrorists out, the terrorists are smart enough to wear suits and dress like we do. They aren't idiots.

Re:Banning Burkas is right - banning ski masks is

[elucido]

The religious female slave/chattel thing doesn't even have to enter into it. Burkas should be banned for the same reason as any face hiding clothing is banned - public safety.

I agree it doesn't have to enter into it, but why shouldn't it?

If we have a security reason to ban Burkas then by all means ban Burkas. But I don't think we should be critical of Islam as a religion. we can be critical of how women are being treated, I'm all for promoting womens liberation. I'm saying we should not attack the integrity of the Islamic religion. It's wrong to attack an entire religion like that.

I've defended Christianity in the past when atheists like Bill Maher have attacked it. It's wrong to attack any of the major religions directly.

At least you are logically consistent.

[elucido]

If you don't like Religion in general then you have the right to attack Islam along with Christian, Judaism, Buddhism or whatever. My problem is only with people who claim their culture and religion is better than another culture and religion as if it's a fact or a given. That is one of the main problems that everyone has with Americans and the west in general.

There is no need to act superior culturally along with having superior military, all the money, etc. There has to be some level of respect for other people, you can't just ridicule them 24/7 while you bomb them to death and expect to make friends. Thats like being the school yard bully who picks on all the little kids on top of claiming you are better than them.

Educated Societies.

[shriphani]

It is quite interesting how right in the middle of Bangladesh and Pakistan lies India with a larger Muslim population than these two states and the Muslims there have stood up against terrorism and are aware that if they don't screw around proclaiming their religion's superiority over other religions, they are accepted into almost all communities in urban India. It just goes to show how a society that values education behaves in a more mature fashion than societies that don't.

Re:ALERT!!! 9,600,000+ images of Muhammad in Googl

[tyrione]

Granted maybe half a million of those are picture of Muhammad Ali, but there are literally millions of images of Muhammad on the Internet...

Makes you wonder how you could possibly remove them all... Of course you cannot.

And the more noise made about it, the more images there will be.

And yet, not one photograph of the Arch-Angel Michael coming out of the Cave.

They don't even know what blasphemous is.

[VShael]

They freaked out over a drawing of a teddy bear that contained a drawing of Santa Claus, just because ANOTHER cartoon character said that the drawing of the Teddy bear covered a drawing of Muhammad.

They are clearly and demonstrably INSANE.

I say, let's poke them with a big stick.

@0-|-

Guess who that's supposed to be?

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[VShael]

I dunno. Almost every religion I know says that we're fucked as a species, and the world will see the end of humans at some point.

That's a prophecy I find easy to believe.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[VShael]

In fairness, I always refer to Jesus as the *benevolent* Zombie jew.

I've never said he was a bad zombie, here to eat brains and what not.
Just that there are many of his followers who seem to love symbolically being brainless.

Replacing verses won't prove your point

[Anonymous Coward]

5:18 (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"
------
5:73 They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
5:74 Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful.
------
9:30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
9:31 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).
-------
5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
5:34 Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
--------
8:39 And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
8:40 If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your Protector - the best to protect and the best to help.
-------
9:4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.
9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

www.islamicity.com/ps

they become what they hate

[yyxx]

The prohibition against making images of Muhammad in Islam is to prevent idolatry, to keep people from confusing symbols of the religion with the spiritual content of the religion. Ironically, that's just what is so prevalent in Islam today: strict enforcement of the symbols and rules of Islam has turned much of the Muslim world into idolaters, people who don't worship God, but instead worship symbols and submit to clerics.

Re:they become what they hate

[couchslug]

There being no God, religion must promptly devolve into idolatry even it pretends otherwise.

Re:they become what they hate

[yyxx]

As a metaphor, God and spirituality can be positive. However, here they are simply being used as instruments of politics and power, and as such, they are negative and dangerous.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[t0rb3n]

So that some so-called artist can have their few weeks of fame.

Yeah, and maybe some months of police protection, too.

There is little evidence that, say Kurt Westergaard's, intentions were to insult Muslims. And even if so, how would his picture stop any Muslims from practicing their religion?

There may have been no responses from Mecca and Medina, but there certainly were responses all over the Islamic world. And those didn't look like "Please leave us alone".

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[t0rb3n]

Like they make no "fun" about the Jews either, http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm right?

Re:Banning Burkas is right - banning ski masks is

[drinkypoo]

I've defended Christianity in the past when atheists like Bill Maher have attacked it. It's wrong to attack any of the major religions directly.

No, it is most certainly not wrong. In fact, free speech is a protected activity for a reason. Major religions need attacking. Islam and Christianity are both inherently sexist and are doing more damage than good today. You are under no obligation to agree, of course; but I would personally argue that it's wrong NOT to attack any of the major religions. When even the Dalai Lama says you're going to hell if you're an unbeliever, it's time to just throw religions over completely. I refuse to be ruled by superstitious fear and the fact that so many in this world allow themselves to be is not just pathetic but it's holding humanity back. Religion is nothing more than a system permitting abdication of any responsibility to a god or gods whose will cannot be denied because it cannot be determined, either.

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[binkzz]

Nice try at the package-dealing there, but "global warming" is a religion, too.

Considering last year was the warmest year since temperatures have been recorded, I'd say that if "global warming" is a religion, then it has a better record of prophecy than any other major religion on Earth.

Are you not familiar with the prophecies of the Bible? Especially the ones that have come true?

There have been no prophecies in the Bible that have not come true, are unlikely to come true or are impossible to come true any more.

I wonder....

[WilliamTheBat]

Is it really about religion, or is it more about putting a stop to Facebook as a medium for political dissent? I have to wonder how cynical the leaders are.

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[drinkypoo]

Are you not familiar with the prophecies of the Bible? Especially the ones that have come true?

The first prophecy claimed as true on your link is the coming of Christ. That puts the entire page into the "faith" category rather than the "facts" category, and it was a total toolbag waste of time.

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[PopeRatzo]

Are you not familiar with the prophecies of the Bible? Especially the ones that have come true [christiananswers.net]?

You're absolutely right! Lots and lots of Bible Prophesies have come true!

Now please just stay calm, and keep your hands where I can see them.

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[binkzz]

The first prophecy claimed as true on your link is the coming of Christ. That puts the entire page into the "faith" category rather than the "facts" category, and it was a total toolbag waste of time.

That Jesus Christ existed is a historical fact. You could choose to not believe that Jesus is the son of God, but that doesn't take away that Jesus was here, and was prophesied by the Bible, to come when he did and to do the things that he did.

Where's the obligatory Life of Brian reference?

[jlorenzatti]

Wow.. you would think seeing a depiction of Mohammed was like saying the word "Jehovah" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI)

Once?

[PilogBue]

Are they constantly blocking sites that mock Mo, or did this just happen because of the public outrage?

Different point of view

[sijucm]

Just another point of view, NO, I do not support the facebook ban.

Are we hypocrites who are not trying to understand the other view point? What if we do not have a lot of respect(some call it tolerance) for our own religion and belief (for those who have it) that we let our 'God'(son) called 'zombie jew'? What right do we have to criticize someone who has a lot of respect and (blind) belief for what he believes in? For a minute think that you totally, fully, blindly believe in Quran and that God/Allah is going to fry your ass if you do not follow his words, won't you do exactly try to do everything(blow yourself up) to prevent it? My point is that all this is about the amount of faith you have in God, what if *we* do not have it.

Christianity also was practiced (although I believe it was not what Jesus wanted) with a very tight interpretation, it is very very difficult to say it was wrong and what we do is right. Maybe we have all gone mad and away from God, but we also need to check whether *we* are the hypocrites and intolerant ones who cannot accept someone who wants to practice his religion strictly and work towards his eternal life (and blow himself and others up for that goal in this life).

May Allah save us all (why not?)

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[drinkypoo]

That Jesus Christ existed is a historical fact

False. There are no reputable historical sources for his existence. Every so-called account by a reputable source (e.g. a historian of the time and place of his supposed existence) is second-hand and admits as much.

You could choose to not believe that Jesus is the son of God, but that doesn't take away that Jesus was here, and was prophesied by the Bible, to come when he did and to do the things that he did.

No, really, there is no good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. And since the bible has been heavily edited and redacted, and the original manuscripts were lost in a fire probably set by rioting Christians, we can never truly deconstruct the bible to determine its relative veracity. So you're going to have to continue to take the existence of Jeshua on faith, due to a complete absence of evidence.

We could argue about this until one or the other dies, or Slashdot fails, but I'm not going to. You have been warned: continuing along this line is a gigantic waste of time. But if you want to progress along it, I suggest you go to bible college, where you can study the issues in peace, among like-minded people.

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[binkzz]

False. There are no reputable historical sources for his existence. Every so-called account by a reputable source (e.g. a historian of the time and place of his supposed existence) is second-hand and admits as much.

I would certainly disagree wholeheartedly with that statement, but because reputable or not reputable is so subjective, you could claim it on any source, and therefore I won't cite any.

and the original manuscripts were lost in a fire probably set by rioting Christians,

Certainly not all of them. Why do you suggest it was done by rioting Christians when it was never in doubt to have been the Romans?

we can never truly deconstruct the bible to determine its relative veracity. So you're going to have to continue to take the existence of Jeshua on faith, due to a complete absence of evidence.

Ultimately, no evidence is absolute and all knowledge we assume is on faith. With a complete absence of evidence, no-one would believe in Jesus or God. I believe in Jesus not just because the Bible says so, but because I read the Bible and test what it says for validity. I have not found any non-truth so far, and that causes me to believe the rest is likely to be true as well.

We could argue about this until one or the other dies, or Slashdot fails, but I'm not going to.

I can understand and respect that.

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[drinkypoo]

Certainly not all of them. Why do you suggest it was done by rioting Christians when it was never in doubt to have been the Romans?

Logic fail: The Christians were Romans. Or do you suggest that the Roman government was running around setting their own record-keeping buildings on fire? The idea that Julius Caesar burned them down accidentally is one of the least-supported theories, and is considered well-debunked. In any case, Wikipedia gives four different explanations and none of them are amazingly well-supported. The issue is complicated by the fact that there were multiple libraries at Alexandria.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[cain]

Quite a few Xians called for bans of Andres Serrano and defunding of the NEA during the "Piss Christ" controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts#1989_objections

College group bans Gays and people who have pre-martial sex:
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/19/christian-college-group-bans-gays-and-people-who-have-premarital-sex-is-it-a-set-up/

Boycotting (not really a call for a ban, I know) Sony because of, get this, how Xians are portrayed in "The DaVinci Code": http://www.christianboycott.org/

Xian call for banning the game "Modern Warfare 2" because of violence and the "well established cause and effect relationshop between video games and violence": http://mainefamilypolicycouncil.com/artman/publish/Opinion_5/Ban_this_Game.shtml

Xians calling for ban on Muslims in the military: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/11/conservative-christian-group-calls-no-more-muslims-military

So bans, yes. Some Xians are very sensitive and call for bans all the time. Death, maybe not so much. (Unless you count the anti-abortion people...) There does seem to be a proto-Xian-al-quieda group in India though, called the National Liberation Front of Tripura: http://www.christianaggression.org/features_nlft.php. Don't know anything about it though.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[couchslug]

"Keep playing the victim card good sir."

"Anything we aren't doing at the moment doesn't count! (Neither do over a BILLION dollars in pedo damage payouts.)

We are always "all better now" and nothing prior to the future matters."

Re:Belief in absolute truth..

[bluebaron]

"Science understands that there can never be a statement that can be taken as anything but an approximation based on the current best evidence."

Yes, I agree. Exactly. Uncertainty and falsification of statements is inherent to the process of doing science. However, belief in the existence of some set of consistent physical laws in needed for the belief that the process of science works. If I don't believe that gravity is governed by some immutable laws, I'm not sure how I'd would go about formulating an approximation to gravity.

This Diamond Cutter Sutra book seems to be more about advice for life, but I'll make an effort to get a copy to read.

How do you know the state doesnt?

[elucido]

The state has the capability to sponsor white supremacists covertly. There is no way to know if these white supremacists are government sponsored or not. A good example would be to look at Hal Turner. There is just no way to know.

While we suspect that foreign governments sponsor terrorist organizations, foreign governments can sponsor white supremacist organizations as well or it could be the local government, there is no way to know.

These religious fundamentalists are just as dangerous. There have been domestic terrorist attacks launched by them and they are a terrorist group. The reason they aren't as big of a threat as Muslim terrorists in Europe is because the USA has one of the best domestic security organizations in the world. Our FBI and Homeland security has prevented many different attacks including one nazi who was trying to build a dirty bomb in his basement who was killed by his wife, and including the sniper who shot Larry Flint.

Do you research, there are domestic terrorist organizations and they are not harmless by accident or by lack of evil intent. They truly intend to do harm and merely have been stopped from doing it via the FBI.

Also(p2)

[elucido]

Muslims aren't like China. In the USA we have our Muslims and we have their Muslims. I'm saying we should respect OUR Muslims, not theirs. It's disrespectful to our Muslims to humiliate Islam as a religion.

Re:Also(p2)

[drinkypoo]

Muslims aren't like China.

Didn't say they were, exactly.

In the USA we have our Muslims and we have their Muslims. I'm saying we should respect OUR Muslims, not theirs. It's disrespectful to our Muslims to humiliate Islam as a religion.

I don't care. Their religion is stupid, just like all religions are stupid, and people SHOULD be disrespected for being religious. If you don't agree, don't disrespect people for being religious, but don't try to suggest that I'm doing something wrong because I do. Religion is the greatest enemy of progress and should be eliminated. Not abolished; simply deprecated.

You joke, but...

[GameboyRMH]

I was just in a US forum arguing for why racial profiling is wrong, and not "an integral aspect of law enforcement" or some crap like that.

I think I got through to some of them, so that makes me feel good.

Religious moderation is dishonest

[Pfhorrest]

The problem was never Islam or the words of the Quaran. Every other religious text has passages in it, often misconstrued due to a lack of anthropological sophistication required to understand their meanings in their time, but the vast majority of other people practice these religions in the moderation required to integrate into society.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I've always strongly disliked this idea of religious moderation.

And before I start off on this, let me be perfectly clear: I am vehemently opposed to religious fundamentalists of any sort.

But religious moderation has always struck me as intellectually and (if your morals are religiously-grounded) morally dishonest. Saying that some book is the holy word of the God you claim to follow, and then ignoring or interpreting away vast swaths of it so that you can belong to that religion while still keeping up with the moral and intellectual progress of the modern world... you basically become religious in name only, or inconsistently, hypocritically religious.

It's like saying that you want to marry some girl... except, you don't want to live together, or have kids, or any joint property or tax status, or inheritance or incapacitation rights... but you still want to have monogamous sex with her. If that's what you want, then you don't really want a marriage, because marriage is this big complex institution that comes with all (or most) of those trappings you just said you don't want. What you want is just a girlfriend. And that's fine; maybe it's even better, maybe marriage is an outdated institution and all those trappings that you want no part of are nonsense. But if that's the case, then get rid of them, and avoid that institution; don't claim to partake of the institution but then ignore many of its fundamental features.

Likewise, many religious moderates don't want all the medieval (hell, sometimes stone-age) trappings that come with their religious traditions: the violence, misogyny, intolerance, authoritarianism, and all-around general barbarism that lies in the roots of at least the Abrahamic religions. But they want the compassion, charity, socialization, and so on that are the usual selling points of these religions. So they adopt the religions but ignore or interpret away all the parts that they don't like. Which is certainly better, from a secular ethical perspective, than dragging all that antiquated barbarism along into the modern world; but if you're going to abandon major chunks of your religion and only keep the parts that plenty of irreligious folk in the modern world have in common, then why claim to follow the religion at all? Throw it away and keep on doing what you've been doing without the intellectual dishonestly of claiming to be something that you're really not.

The fundamentalists of a given religion are the true adherents of that religion. If you don't like the fundamentalists, then just abandon the religion; or make a new one more to your liking and be a fundamentalist of that instead. You'll be living the same way you live today, but you'll be more honest about it.

Re:Religious moderation is dishonest

[ShakaUVM]

>>But religious moderation has always struck me as intellectually and (if your morals are religiously-grounded) morally dishonest

It depends what religion you mean. In Christianity, there's no concept of trying to convert by the sword - Jesus and his crew went out and talked people into converting. If you follow Jesus, you don't behead them if they don't believe in you. In Islam, well, there ARE passages that are quite hard for the moderate to deal with.

I really hate when atheists conflate Christianity with Islam. They're two different religions, and have two vastly different philosophies. Jesus was a brilliant man, peaceful, smart, and a healer. Mohammad was a lying warlord who married a very young girl. Christians getting back to their roots don't have to deal with all that convert-or-die stuff that modern day moderate Islam does.

>>The fundamentalists of a given religion are the true adherents of that religion.

No. Fundies follow the Bible much less closely than other mainstream religions. They're a modern invention created in response to rising scientism in our society. If you want to understand what Christians actually believe, you will have to take your atheist hat off for a second and realize the mouth breathing people you see on TV don't represent traditional Christian thought. Read instead the writings of the Catholic Church, especially the early fathers. They wrote long before the whole "Darwin vs. Religion" pseudo-debate happened, and considered Genesis to be metaphorical instead of literal. Read your St. Augustine or Origen or Polycarp or whatever. They obviously haven't been touched by modernism, and they disagree with fundies. The Catholic Church got nearly every theological point right except when it came to their invented doctrine of purgatory, saints, and sex. The church is forbidden from forcing church elders to be chaste. The RCC ignores this, and gets pedophiles as the result.

Fundies are the loudest, but they're not actually "Bible Christians" as they claim. Jesus turned water into wine. They consider alcohol to be the work of the devil. Etc., etc., etc.

>>but you still want to have monogamous sex with her. If that's what you want, then you don't really want a marriage, because marriage is this big complex institution that comes with all (or most) of those trappings you just said you don't want.

To be fair, most if not all of the modern day churches get the sex issue wrong. Oddly enough, this is the most common complaint about Christianity. Well, perhaps not that oddly.

>>Likewise, many religious moderates don't want all the medieval (hell, sometimes stone-age) trappings that come with their religious traditions

However, your core point is wrong. There are not "stone age trappings" in Christianity. But Christianity was amazingly modern for its time, and still is an ethical standard much higher than most people live by today. Honestly, there's only two fundamental rules in Christianity: 1) Love God above all else, 2) Love other people as much as yourself. All else is window dressing.

You could make an argument that Judaism is caught in "stone age trappings", except Maihamondes said something nearly identical to the above. And he was writing in the 1600s.

Re:Religious moderation is dishonest

[Pfhorrest]

If Christianity were really, truly, purely Christianity, I would agree with you. Jesus was an awesome guy with a pretty modern, ethical message for his part. A Christianity based on something like the Jefferson Bible would be mostly fine by my reckoning.

But Jesus self-identified as Jewish, the modern Christian Bible includes many of the old Jewish books of the Torah such as Leviticus, and most importantly, though many Christians interpret the Bible as such, it is not at all clear that Jesus meant to dismiss such ancient law with his teachings. Jesus did say that "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" were the most important commandments (Mark 12:28-31), but he didn't say that that was the whole of the religion. If he had, or even if he had meant that, then why would Leviticus and the like still be in modern Christian Bibles?

If someone with no prior exposure to Christianity went out to a Christian book store, bought a modern copy of the Bible off the shelf (say the NIV), and read it and believed it as it was written, even if he interpreted the metaphors metaphorically and the parables parabolically and such, you still get all the baggage of those unambiguously barbaric bits like "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads". (Leviticus 20:13). Whether or not Jesus meant that that doesn't count anymore, it's still in there, so to ignore it is a matter of interpretation, and thus not fundamentalist. A fundamentalist Christian would support that part too.

FWIW I also agree that many in America who call themselves fundamentalists have some pretty shitty interpretations of the Bible themselves (from a textual analysis perspective, not only an ethical perspective). But my point still stands that a Christianity which takes the whole of the Bible as God's written truth with no interpretation-to-make-it-sound-better -- that is to say, a fundamentalist form of Christianity -- get a lot of stone-age baggage from the Jewish texts it inherited. For their part, modern Jews mostly ignore or interpret away a lot of the barbaric bits of their own texts... but my original point was that as nice as that is ethically and socially, it's intellectually dishonest; they should abandon or amend it instead of just pretending it's what they'd like it to be.

Like Jefferson did with Christianity. Too bad his version of the book never caught on...

Also, the marriage thing was just an analogy, I meant no comment on religious views of marriage. Just that "monogamous girlfriend" does not meet any nearly modern definition of "marriage", so calling you and your monogamous girlfriend "married" when you don't have all the other bits aside from monogamous sex going on is a little dishonest, just like calling yourself an adherent of a religion and then disregarding all the parts of if you don't like. Even if you stick with what you consider the most important features of it, just as monogamous couples are sticking to arguably the most important feature of marriage. They're still not strictly married if they don't have all the other defining bits going on, and you're not strictly a Christian (given the current Bible defines Christianity) if you ignore everything in it but Jesus. Maybe marriage should just imply sexual monogamy without all the other bits, and Christianity should just imply adherence to Jesus' ethical teachings without all the Jewish baggage -- both points I might be inclined to agree on -- but that's not what they actually mean right now.

Re:Religious moderation is dishonest

[ShakaUVM]

>>If Christianity were really, truly, purely Christianity, I would agree with you. Jesus was an awesome guy with a pretty modern, ethical message for his part. A Christianity based on something like the Jefferson Bible would be mostly fine by my reckoning.

Well, that's why I try to do my part to fight ignorance. =) Most Christians don't have a very good grasp of theology, often just parroting what their pastor says (wine is the work of the devil!) Atheists are often worse, parroting what Dawkins thinks the Bible says, which starts to end up being like a blasphemous version of Telephone.

>>you still get all the baggage of those unambiguously barbaric bits

If you were making an argument about Judaism being stuck in the bronze age, I might be inclined to agree with you. Orthodox Jews have a lot of issues like this, though it bears pointing out they never actually stoned anyone to death for disrespecting their parents (take that as you will). It's also important to understand where Jews are coming from: God made a covenant (i.e. contract) with Abraham - he would worship God, and God would give him lots of descendants. A gay guy is a covenant breaker. When you look at the OT from this perspective, a lot of the weirder passages (to the modern eye) make sense. No eunuch can become a Jew - that one always puzzled me (my pastor told me it was a cult ritual thing, and who knows? He could be right, too.)

If the OT contained an ethical message for the bronze age, Jesus brought an ethical message that was the equivalent of grad school - no hard and fast rules to follow, but everyone being held to a much higher ethical standard. A Jew could just say, "Sorry, bleeding dude, can't help you. It's the Sabbath." A Christian would be morally obligated to help bleeding dude. His parables make this abundantly clear - the law was to serve man, to try to elevate him to a higher level... not man to serve the law. To paraphrase some passage or other. So I don't think that a Christian following the Bible precisely would kill a gay guy.

And please don't get me started on the sex thing - Jesus very explicitly said that chastity had to be a voluntary sacrifice, but the RCC made it mandatory for their leadership (for a good reason 1000 years ago, but no longer a good reason now), and a lot of the havoc in the church is directly a result of their ignoring some very good advice in the Bible. Likewise, the notion that one man should only ever be with one woman (and more importantly vice versa) is exploded by OT law, and Jesus implicitly going along with it when questioned about marriage in heaven. I suppose I could provide a reference if you'd like, but you seem pretty well read on the subject, and probably know what I'm talking about.

As for the Jefferson Bible thing, I do incline a touch towards Deism, at least from the point of view that it seems like a lot of people ascribe God's direct involvement in things a bit too readily. I don't think he doesn't involve himself at all, though. Also, it seems a bit disrespectful to be chopping up a Bible with scissors, but I guess nowadays you could do the same thing with Word.

On Faith and Authority

[Pfhorrest]

It's religion, which, when you come right down to it, has less to do with God and Magic than it does with power and control.

I'd argue that these two things are tightly related. When a belief is not grounded in something experiential, phenomenal, observable, and consequently accessible to everyone, then you have to form beliefs about those sorts of things on faith. Which means either just jumping to a conclusion yourself and declaring yourself right, or taking someone else's word for it. So belief in the supernatural directly leads to authoritarian structures: you must either assume your own authority, or follow someone else's.

prophet muhammed married a 9yo girl when he was 53

[jsepeta]

i feel no desire to protect the religious primacy of zealots who follow the belief system set in place by a 53 year old child rapist. so i have no qualms about portraying muhammed as a pig, because in reality, he was far worse than an animal that lies about in shit all day.

it's ok to ban objects used to subjugate others

[jsepeta]

banning the burka makes as much sense as banning female castration (genital mutilation). it's a practice whose only use is to keep women in subjugation. the burka is to Muslim women what leg irons were to the slaves of the American south.

LOL - how many people name their son Jesus?

[jsepeta]

muslims suck and their religion is a sucky extension of their limited ability to reason.

Lately

[shnull]

people ask me a lot if i'm a racist since i seem to be a bit stuck on the issues these muhammadans have and since to the untrained eye a lot of them have a different color of skin than white ... To these people i have to say : "No, i'm not a racist, i'm a fundamentalist retard-ist'

Unbelievable!

[zguy]

I just can't believe this shit anymore. As a user, you can't even delete your profile from Facebook. You can only inactivate it. Right there, I have a BIG problem. On top of that they make all your personal information available to anyone without you knowing about it with all those apps, and they change user privacy settings to make them more confusing to users, all of these being TOTALLY UNNACEPTABLE. And now Facebook, to be politically correct, responds affirmatively to terrorists when it does not even do that to it's own users!?!?!?!? I used to have a problem with Facebook. Now, I have a very serious issue! Lack of trust is one thing. Political correctness (which I can't give a shit about) is another thing. But siding with and acknowledging terrorists is not acceptable in my book. I can only hope social networking can work out a proper balance. But knowing human nature as I do, it's not likely. May be we should get rid of the whole social networking thing altogether.

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[victorhooi]

heya,

Oh please, that's complete rubbish, and you know it.

Firstly, they just want to be left alone? Get real. Every time there's a flare-up over this, Muslims around the world issue death threats, threaten fatwahs against those involved, and say they'll kill them all. Hardly the sort of rhetoric you expect from people who "just want to be left alone."

And secondly, how exactly does a goddamn photo hurt them? Or a drawing? So I, here, in Australia draw a picture of Mohammed. I don't even know what he's meant to look like, but say I do. How exactly does that hurt some other random person living in Bangladesh?

To me, it sounds like a spoilt little kid who just wants his way.

You say these things are "sensitive" to Muslims. You think having Christianity insulted isn't "sensitive" to Christians? Or Judaism to Jews? Or to "? Are Muslims somehow more "special"?

No, the only difference I can see is that they haven't grown up or matured yet, like other religions. The Jews have learnt to deal with being the butt of jokes for a long time. Likewise with most Christians - see my links to Raptor Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, heck, even Richard Dawkin's show on Christianity, the Root of Evil? I mean, really?

And you say that they don't care - if they did, then places like Pakistan and Bangladesh wouldn't be censoring the internet now, would they? Or you wouldn't get the sort of vile rhetoric from places like Saudi Arabia, or Iran about how the infidels should die, would you?

Regarding the bestsellers poking fun at Christianity, you say it reflects our society - err, yeah, a society with free speech, where people are free to say what they want? To be honest though, I suspect some of those sales are from Christians - I myself own most of Dawkin's books, as well as the Dan Brown novels, as well as several atheist or anti-Christianity books. It's useful to know what others think of us, and you'll end up needing to have answers to many of those questions if you ever try and share the gospel with somebody's who's read them.

Sorry, but your post is full of rubbish

Cheers,
Victor

Re:This is religious intolerance.

[victorhooi]

heya,

Please, let's not be naive. How exactly is Raptor Jesus *not* a joke about Jesus. *shakes head*. You atheists are funny =). Like I said, it's a joke, the raptor jesus one is a bit silly, the FSM is at least a bit more clever, but they're both jokes.

And let's examine your next point. Jesus's real name is...err, Jesus? It's passed through a few languages (English, from Latin, from Greek, from Hebrew), but it means "Yahweh delivers" in the original Hebrew. It's just a name. Messiah means "annoitned one", and is likewise a name.

Regarding the fact he didn't have children, err, he didn't, or at least we have no evidence he did. Please paste some links here to your sources that show he did, because I will eat my hat if they're credible.

And his writings not allowed into the bible? Ok, firstly, Jesus never *wrote* anything. Other people, his disciples, or Greek historians wrote down what he wrote. I assume here you're referring here to Apocryphal texts? Most of those have been debunked as frauds, and there's good reasons they're not in the Christian bible. Most of the gospels were written some 50 to 100 years after the death of Jesus. Ironically, that's actually a lot better than many other historical texts we rely on (Roman or Greek from that period).

"How could you not allow his own writings into the bible?". Err, like I said above, he never wrote anything. Zip, nada. And most of these fake works have been dated to what, several hundred hears after the canonical gospel works. And revealed as fakes. So it's not hard to see why we treat them as such.

Regarding the child molestation, well, I'm actually Protestant, but of course I'm outraged. It's a terrible thing, and a sin the church needs to absolve itself of. I don't think anybody's ever actually claimed otherwise, but of course, I assume there's plenty of conspiracy theories about cover-ups and such like.

The Mass - well, as I said, I'm protestant, but for us the bible is in whatever language is easiest and most accessible. We have Christians around the world translating the bible into many different languages - even some spoken in only small remote tribes or regions. We want it to be accessible. Jesus's original language was Aramaic - which these days is essentially dead, so they'd be little point of the bible being in that. The whole point is for anybody to be able to read it.

The Latin thing is I assume a historical throwback for the Catholics, there's probably history behind that, but you'd need to talk to a Catholic.

And Jesus wasn't white, he was Jewish...lol....all the historical texts points to so. Even writers like Taccitus, a respected Roman historian talks about a Jesus being crucified. He also said the Christians were idiots who believed in him, but at least we know there was a Jesus character who was crucified.

We even have historical evidence of Roman soldiers making fun of Christians for believing in a "crucified messiah", so we know at least that part is true. The historical veracity of Jesus is never in question, at least not by serious historians. The issue is whether he was actually the Son of God, and whether he actually rose. If these are both false, then he's just another Jewish guy who got crucified by the romans - and there were hundreds if not thousands of those.

And the beard/long hair - err, he was a Jew, since when do they consider them "unclean"? I'm really not sure where you're getting your facts from. Seriously, go talk to a Jew...lol.

Furthermore, he was (or so we believe, very strongly), the Son of God, so what he said goes, basically. And he did say he came to do away with a lot of the old legalistic traditions.

Regarding your straw-man fallacy about the child murderer into heaven - hmm, let's see, you have to actually repent to be let in. Whether a child murderer to use your example can actually repent, truly, well, that's between him and God. At the end of the day, we believe that 1. Everybody is sinful. Yes, everybody, even Mother Teresa, and 2. Techni

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[ShakaUVM]

>>I pray to global warming so that my mommy and daddy dont get a divorce.

According to Danny Glover, the Haiti earthquake was global warming's way of punishing us for our sins.

Which is very similar to what Pat Robertson said with their infernal pact and all that. So yeah, I guess it is a religion, at least for some idiots.

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[ShakaUVM]

>>False. There are no reputable historical sources for his existence.

Most every mainstream historians believe there was a historical Jesus. Atheist historians think he wasn't the son of God, but I think even idiots like Hitchens admit that he existed (IIRC).

There are extant writings from people who worked with the apostles, so it's very very hard to claim that Jesus never existed. (And the writings of the apostles themselves, but you're using special pleading to disallow them.)

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[ShakaUVM]

>>Logic fail: The Christians were Romans. Or do you suggest that the Roman government was running around setting their own record-keeping buildings on fire? The idea that Julius Caesar burned them down accidentally is one of the least-supported theories, and is considered well-debunked. In any case, Wikipedia gives four different explanations and none of them are amazingly well-supported. The issue is complicated by the fact that there were multiple libraries at Alexandria.

This is honestly one of the stupidest statements I've ever read on Slashdot. Are you honestly claiming the original manuscripts of the New Testament were destroyed in Julius Caesar's time? The man died in 44BC!

If not, please explain.

Also, logic fail: Christians were nominally Romans (depending which place and time), but not all Romans were Christians. You might want to go back to a basic logic class again.

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[drinkypoo]

? The idea that Julius Caesar burned them down accidentally is one of the least-supported theories, and is considered well-debunked.

This is honestly one of the stupidest statements I've ever read on Slashdot. Are you honestly claiming the original manuscripts of the New Testament were destroyed in Julius Caesar's time? The man died in 44BC!

Uh, you're an idiot. Read my sentence again. It's considered well-debunked. Now read my sig. Now read my comment again. Now fuck off.

If not, please explain.

Explanation: Your total reading comprehension failure has caused you to call me stupid. You are a fucking toolbag.

Also, logic fail: Christians were nominally Romans (depending which place and time), but not all Romans were Christians. You might want to go back to a basic logic class again.

Yes, that is a logic fail, but it is yours. GP said Romans burned it down, not Christians, but since the Christians were "nominally" Romans (they were within the Roman empire, whose pressures produced Christianity) then if Christians burned it down, Romans burned it down. See how that works?

Stop me when I'm wrong, but first, be right.

Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance

[ShakaUVM]

>>It's considered well-debunked.

Well-debunked?? Are you missing the fact that there's a clue hidden inside the words "44 BC"?

Honestly, this is the most appallingly stupid statement I've seen since someone on here claimed the druids were wiped out by Christians.

Re:Belief in absolute truth..

[stonewolf]

You would formulate an approximation to gravity exactly the way we humans did find our current favorite approximation to gravity.

First, we had to notice it. Yep, first part is thinking to ask the question, why do we stick to the ground? Then later Galileo Galilei did a whole bunch of experiments and came up with an equation that described how thing fall near his home in Italy on planet Earth. He also notice things in the sky that were not supposed to be there.

A while later after people had collected lots of data about the motion of the things in the sky a fellow named Newton came up with a set of equations that described how the things in the sky moved and he figured out how to tie that motion in the way thing fall on Earth. Smart guy Newton.

Then we started collecting information about motion of the stars and a little planet named Mercury and found that Newton's equations no longer seemed to work and eventually a guy named Einstein came up with some equations that describes that data, plus all the date collected since Galileo Galilei and that is pretty much our current theory of gravity.

except that we now know that Einstien's equations break down at certain points. And, we are seeing indications that maybe gravity is an emergent effect of something a lot deeper. It looks like the natural laws of our Universe may have changed over time. Controversial results, but that is the way science works.

IMHO, it looks like Physics is getting ready for a huge change. But, I am not a physicist.

What is wrong with believing in immutable laws? The same thing that is wrong with believing anything. It throws you off the path. If you believe there are immutable laws you will not notice, or you will ignore, evidence that points to variable laws.

Think about who long it took for the fact that continents move to be accepted? Deep down geologists did not believe that continents could possible move. The hardest thing in science is getting past the unreasoned and unquestioned belief. Or, think about how long it took for western science to accept the idea that the Earth is billions of years old. The whole of western culture had the deeply held belief that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. And, yet, if you measure the rate at which sediment piles up in a lake or ocean and then look at a wall of sedimentary rock that is thousands of feed thick you find your self having to believe two completely contradictory ideas. Either the Earth is old enough for sediment to build up into a thousand foot wall. In which case the Earth is very old and a basic "truth" is actually a lie. Or, something else made that wall look like sediment, when it isn't.

You get trapped in the problem of believing in a god that lies with his works but tells the truth with his words, or the other way around.

The number of examples of science taking decades or centuries to get past a widely held cultural belief is huge.

When I was a kid we had the problem that the official version of history said that the first humans came into North America about 10,000 years ago. And yet, there was an ever growing pile of evidence of people who were here more than 12,000 years ago who seem to have suddenly disappeared.

Now we know about the comment that hit North America about 12,000 years ago and the evidence makes sense.

But, back in the '60s and '70s it was almost impossible to even publish a paper that showed carbon dated evidence of people being in NA that long ago. Why? Because some very powerful scientists *believed* that people were not here that early.

Belief has no place in science. You have to look at the evidence and go from there. Trouble is that we humans have beliefs and we often are not even aware of them.

A comment or two about the Diamond Sutra. I have for a long time had a hobby of reading the "religious" writings of many cultures. Some I have found simply incomprehensible. Others are more accessible but take a lot of work. I started in on the Buddhist Sutras quite awhile ago an