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

[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

[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

[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

[sycodon]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

I want

[Gonoff]

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

Who will I start with...

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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: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.

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:Bangladesh and Pakistan not in the modern world

[masmullin]

Calling them primitives would be too kind

can we call them integrals?

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.

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

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: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.

[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.

funny muhammad pics?

[portnux]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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'

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: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.

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?

[wirelessbuzzers]

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

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.

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: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?

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.

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)

Re:Muslim perspective?

[iONiUM]

What happens if I don't cut back on my rhetoric.

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.