Slashdot Mirror


Pakistani Lawyer Wants Mark Zuckerberg Executed

Earthquake Retrofit sends along a piece from The Register reporting on a nightmare scenario of legal jurisdiction on the Internet: a Pakistani lawyer has filed blasphemy charges, carrying the death penalty, against Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives (and the pseudonomous user who initiated the "Draw Muhammad" contest last month). Pakistani police have apparently opened an investigation, according to this Google translation of a BBC Urdu report."

177 of 1,318 comments (clear)

  1. I love moderates by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one am glad to see the Islamic religion embracing their moderate side.

    1. Re:I love moderates by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you really expect for a religion literally meaning "submission" and where the very founder spread it at the point of a sword. As a society, we all want to have a very PC belief that all religions are created equal, have good intentions, at their core are always good messages and what not and it's only the bad people that pervert them.... but I think that's naive and I'm saying this as an agnostic. Treating unsubstantiated beliefs as sacred and taboo will always be a bad thing because you can't challenge a good or bad interpretation with logic and clearly any and all belief systems set up by man for various agendas will have downsides - some more than others.

    2. Re:I love moderates by mark72005 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, at least they are bothering to pursue the execution through legal channels this time.

      Progress is progress.

    3. Re:I love moderates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ya I don't understand these blasphemy charges. If someone says something they disagree with, then should just ignore him and move on. I'm not religious so I guess the equivalent for me would be someone claiming that coconuts are fruits. I'll think he's an idiot but that's it, I won't want him executed.

    4. Re:I love moderates by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Reformation vs no reformation. It's pretty easy to figure out which ones went through which 700 years ago.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:I love moderates by aicrules · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Founder spreading it by the sword is different than the followers/descendants distorting its message to spread it by the sword. So no, not insightful. Similar yes, but when the ACTUAL original roots of a belief system involve violence, that's a lot different.

    6. Re:I love moderates by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, Christianity has its roots in Judaism, which while not exactly "spread" by the point of the sword, it was advanced by the point of the sword.

      Judaism's history was a very violent one, though they were/are not particularly interested in spreading the religion, because it is a racial religion.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    7. Re:I love moderates by Dunega · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and? Is that supposed to make it OK somehow?

    8. Re:I love moderates by Tarlus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Treating unsubstantiated beliefs as sacred and taboo will always be a bad thing because you can't challenge a good or bad interpretation with logic and clearly any and all belief systems set up by man for various agendas will have downsides - some more than others.

      Not to mention, any time that a death penalty is suggested for anything less than homicide, there's something terribly wrong with the picture.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    9. Re:I love moderates by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmmm, pretty much sounds like Christianity as well.

      Of course it does. In it's early days, mainstream Christian Church killed 10s of thousands of Gnostic Christians who were well known for their extreme religious tolerance but got the ire of the church for their unorthodox views like that the God of the old Testament was evil and writing the Gospel of Judas. Not too mention everything since then. It sounds the same because it's inherently the same type of social structure with the same basic aims.

      Of course, Christianity has splintered since then just like Islam has. Splintering doesn't mean automatically being more progressive -- the Puritans and countless other Christian sects were even more strict and worse than the Catholic Church in many ways and as oppressive against women and other things as bad as the most radical Islamic groups.

      In fact, the basic attitudes between the groups are the same, which is why embracing religion will never work out. The only two ways to overcome that is to teach a different interpration of the religion or to forgo all pretense and drop it completely in order to change majority's attitudes about religion -- and that usually means converting them young and waiting for the next generation to come into power. (It's said that controversial scientific theories were often the same way, there were adherents that you would never convert despite all the evidence in the world, you just wait for them to die off).

    10. Re:I love moderates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

      Matthew 10:34-37

      (Jesus speaking to his disciples)

      Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that Christians ignore most of the worst parts, but you can't pretend they aren't there.

    11. Re:I love moderates by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is referring to his followers being persecuted and rejected by their own family members.

      Which, I might add, is an exact description of what happens when a Muslim converts to Christianity. If the family doesn’t outright execute him or her, they at the very least are completely disowned.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    12. Re:I love moderates by poptones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What are you talking about? The inquisition was still going on when this country was formed a little over 200 years ago...

      Fuck Mohammed and the camel he rode in on!

    13. Re:I love moderates by easterberry · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hate to bring this up because it's off topic. But Hitler was Catholic. He went to church, was backed by the Vatican and mentions doing Gods work in Mein Kampf. You can't disown him from your belief system because he was a cunt.

      All of which is beside the point because this article isn't about "religion is bad" it's about "murderous extremists are bad". The current culture of the middle east just happens to foster a religious culture predisposed to extremism.

    14. Re:I love moderates by zero_out · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some would pose strong, and well substantiated, arguments that Catholicism isn't Christianity. One such argument may even be the example that you gave.

    15. Re:I love moderates by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What do you really expect for a religion literally meaning "submission" and where the very founder spread it at the point of a sword

      What I really expect is for people to be able to tell the difference between an entire religion, and one asshat who claims to follow that religion. You can claim that the behavior of the asshat characterizes the entire religion, but that doesn't make it so.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    16. Re:I love moderates by zero.kalvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know I may have fallen for a troll trap here, but I am not letting this one go: Hitler atheism is in doubt. The evidence point more toward him being a catholic. Beside wasn't the soldiers who committed these crimes?, are you telling me that Germany's army during ww2 was an atheist army ??None of these soldiers was a catholic one ? Stalin was dogmatic in his views about social composition, he was so dogmatic about these things, it was as religion. Same goes for Pol Pot. It was religion that started the Crusades, it was religion who started the inquisition, it was religion who brought down the Towers. What about slavery in US ? who were the south quoting on the right for slaves? Get you fact right! "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

    17. Re:I love moderates by Eivind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I'd be more likely to agree that all religions are, at the core, about power and influence. Frequently they're tools whereby a tiny elite try to influence and control a large flock of sheep.

    18. Re:I love moderates by rednip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Art only becomes idolatry when one feels that it has some special representation. Pledging to kill the creator of an image is in fact proof of worshiping it.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    19. Re:I love moderates by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Judaism's history was a very violent one, though they were/are not particularly interested in spreading the religion, because it is a racial religion.

      No more violent than most of the other tribes/nations of the time. Judaism is unique from Christianity and Islam in that it didn't start solely as a religion, but also as a political unit, complete with a legal system (I don't mean the laws about who you can sleep with and which animals you can eat, but the laws about how much money you owe your neighbor when your ox kills one of his goats) and conflicts with neighboring tribes. With the separation of politics and civil law from religion that we have in Europe and the Americas now, a lot of people forget that Judaism had no such separation 3,000 years ago.

    20. Re:I love moderates by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a society, we all want to have a very PC belief that all religions are created equal, have good intentions, at their core are always good messages and what not and it's only the bad people that pervert them.... but I think that's naive and I'm saying this as an agnostic.

      I don't think that's right. I think about the only people who think all religions are equal are:

      • Athiests - who think all religions are crap, and just hope people won't be jerks about their religions.
      • Politicians - who just want everyone to get along.
      • Unitarians and maybe Hindus (have I got that right?) - who basically think all religions are partially accurate and pointing towards the same actual truth.

      As a fellow agnostic, what I want is just for people to give me enough space to figure this stuff out, without threatening to kill me if I don't buy into their religion.

    21. Re:I love moderates by WitnessForTheOffense · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great, now /. is going to get investigated by the Pakistani police. Happy?

    22. Re:I love moderates by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Reformation gets very little credit for the relative moderation(or at least contemporary impotence) of Christianity, outside of some real shitholes. Calvin's Geneva was a Protestant theocracy, and there were numerous examples at least as unpleasant.

      Also, while Islam didn't have a "reformation", it also has the "two-substantially-dissimilar-and-mutually-displeased-with-one-another-sects-operating-under-one-heading" thing going, with the Sunni and Shia branches(plus some smaller oddball variants), and that hasn't exactly exposed its warm and fuzzy side.

      Most of the credit for the West not being a ghastly theocratic hellhole, torn by endless wars between the terrorized papistical minions of Rome and the terrorized heretical minions of various protestant factions, with the occasional witch burning or crusade to bring people together, is due to the Enlightenment.

      "Mankind will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest"(and the last advertising shill is buried alive alongside them)...

    23. Re:I love moderates by durrr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So just because some of our remote ancestors behaved like giant douchebags it's okay to let people repeat it, especially if it's in the name of religion.
      What happened to learning from history to avoid repeating its mistake? Or did i miss some clause detailing exceptions to this?

    24. Re:I love moderates by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd add fraud and other white collar crimes for cases where the damages exceed the statistical value of a human life.

    25. Re:I love moderates by Pingmaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unless that asshat happens to be the Pope

    26. Re: I love moderates by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In it's early days, mainstream Christian Church killed 10s of thousands of Gnostic Christians

      I'm not aware that non-Gnostic Christians acted violently against Gnostic Christians. They basically sidelined them by establishing the canon (New Testament) as the source of spiritual authority, over and against the Gnostic emphasis on personal experience.

      In medieval times some European Christian rulers did convert their subjects or neighbors at swordpoint, and the Crusades were religiously induced violence, and later the heretical sects such as Albigenses and Bogomils were exterminated. And there was that wonderful Thirty Years War thing.

      Of course, you can rarely distangle religion and politics in these things. People have an uncanny knack for concluding that God wants just what they want, and wants them to be the instrument of His will. I suspect religion is often more of an excuse than the actual cause.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    27. Re:I love moderates by Sociable+Scientician · · Score: 5, Informative

      I hate to bring this up because it's off topic. But Hitler was Catholic. He went to church, was backed by the Vatican and mentions doing Gods work in Mein Kampf. You can't disown him from your belief system because he was a cunt.

      What??? How was this modded informative?? Hitler may have been born Catholic, but he was Catholic in the same way Marx was Jewish--both are religions that are also ethnic identities, because people are inducted into them in childhood. Here are some representative quotes from his later life:

      "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

      (Quoted by Albert Speer, architect of the Third Reich)

      The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror.

      --From Mein Kampf

      "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."

    28. Re:I love moderates by Lundse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm curious, which 21st century Christian figures are calling for and filing motions for government-sponsored murder?

      Wrong question.
      The interesting question is what countries enable you to file a religion-based motion for government-sponsored murder.

      You have nutters all over the place, of every colour and (proclaimed) stripe/culture/religion - the problems is having those nutters in powers. Screw the reformation - the seperation of church and state, constitutions and bills of right are what makes a difference!

      --
      IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
    29. Re:I love moderates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, while Islam didn't have a "reformation", it also has the "two-substantially-dissimilar-and-mutually-displeased-with-one-another-sects-operating-under-one-heading" thing going, with the Sunni and Shia branches(plus some smaller oddball variants), and that hasn't exactly exposed its warm and fuzzy side.

      Islam is currently having a reformation, actually. It's called Wahhabi Islam, and is getting its claws deep into every part of the Islamic world. This is the version of Islam commonly exported from Saudi Arabia to other parts of the world - principally of significance to most here, the US and Europe.

      Ironically, Iran (and parts of Iraq) are the only parts of the Islamic world which aren't seeing huge increases in Wahhabi - and they're also the only significant Shia populations. Considering the sect warfare within Islam alone, it might give some pause when considering Iran's nuclear program and give us cause to both support and quickly oppose said program.

    30. Re:I love moderates by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Funny

      The inquisition was still going on when this country was formed a little over 200 years ago...

      Well to be fair, nobody expected it.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    31. Re:I love moderates by Tiger4 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Mankind will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest"(and the last advertising shill is buried alive alongside them)...

      Look, we've got just about all the Kings finished off, but we have a long way to go on all the priests. Are you saying we need to preserve the last King until we're down to the last priest as well? That is going to complicate the logistics horribly.

      And God knows how long until the ad man goes down for the count. I think this whole timetable needs to be revisited.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    32. Re:I love moderates by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being disowned in a Muslim culture is a bit more serious than being disowned in the US. In the Muslim culture, your identity – the fact that you are a person, and have civil rights – is based on your Muslim heritage. If your parents retract it, you’re George Bailey. You weren’t born. You don’t exist.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    33. Re:I love moderates by Spewns · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Treating unsubstantiated beliefs as sacred and taboo will always be a bad thing because you can't challenge a good or bad interpretation with logic and clearly any and all belief systems set up by man for various agendas will have downsides - some more than others.

      Not to mention, any time that a death penalty is suggested for anything less than homicide, there's something terribly wrong with the picture.

      Anytime the death penalty is suggested at all, there's something terribly wrong with the picture. Nobody can logically explain why it's okay to kill someone when it isn't okay to kill someone.

    34. Re:I love moderates by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fuck Mohammed and the camel he rode in on!

      It's a bit late for either. But apparently it's easier for a rich man to enter a camel if he stands on a box.

    35. Re:I love moderates by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      As an Atheist, I assure you I do not think all religions are equal.

      I consider Muslim teaching far worse then Buddhism.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    36. Re:I love moderates by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Easy solution: store entrails of the last king/priest (whichever comes first) in liquid nitrogen and thaw them before use.

    37. Re:I love moderates by Endo13 · · Score: 5, Informative

      How? Religion is created by people.

      Most religions are. Judaism and Christianity claim to have been created by God.

      I, for one, do not believe that the New Testament speaks only Christ's words and teachings, especially considering that considerable portions were written hundreds of years after his death.

      Hundreds of years? The latest possible date for *any* of the books is 150AD. The most likely date places the most recent one (Revelation) as being written in 95AD.

      This isn't even considering that Jesus, like Luther centuries later, wasn't necessarily seeking to create a new religion, rather he was attempting to modify the existing Hebrew religion.

      Pretty much everything Jesus taught in his day flew directly in the face of what Judaism taught at the time. The leaders of Judaism where his biggest opponents. In fact, his blasphemy by their definition was so horrible as to warrant the worst possible sentence they had at their disposal. Not exactly what anyone would (with any seriousness) call a "modification" of an existing religion.

      And there aren't many people who would say that the Hebrews were necessarily a completely peaceful people. From the massacre of the worshipers of the golden calf to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, there was plenty of violence to go around.

      That is history prior to Christianity. No where in the New Testament will you violence being condoned for the followers of Christianity to participate in. You do however find lots of support for returning good for evil, and non-retaliation for violence received.

      Christianity is not about forcing a world view, religion, beliefs, or anything on anyone else. It's about spreading the good news of the Gospel to everyone so they have the choice to be saved or not.

      It's fine if you choose not to believe in Christianity but you should at least research the facts before you make claims when you clearly don't know the subject matter.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    38. Re:I love moderates by groslyunderpaid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unitarian doesn't belong there. Unitarian is on the other side of the river from trinitarian.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

    39. Re:I love moderates by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's pretty simple. If you kill someone, rape someone or commit high treason, then you need to be put down as you have no place in a civilized society.

      That attitude means society never has to look at itself to see if it is creating conditions that cause people to kill, rape, or commit treason, let alone do anything about any such conditions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:I love moderates by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, while Islam didn't have a "reformation", it also has the "two-substantially-dissimilar-and-mutually-displeased-with-one-another-sects-operating-under-one-heading" thing going, with the Sunni and Shia branches

      The Sunni/Shia split happened very early on and really resembles the Orthodox/Catholic split in Christianity a lot more than it does the Reformation.

    41. Re:I love moderates by JiffyPop · · Score: 4, Funny

      So you are saying they have progressed from chaotic evil to lawful evil?

    42. Re:I love moderates by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      In theory, I'd agree with you: from a moral point of view, the person who does these things deserves to lose their life.

      From a practical point of view, it's a terrible idea. The justice system is not able to correctly mete out these punishments. People who commit these crimes go free. People who are innocent are convicted of them. Also, the threat of a death penalty causes mismatch in threatened penalties compared with the evidence against them, so they plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than lose their life for a crime they did not commit. The police lie under oath and fake evidence, with the truth coming out years or decades later. Witnesses are horribly unreliable, and they can be pressured to perjure themselves.

      Add up the expenses and hoops involved in death penalty cases and it's a cheaper proposition to put someone in prison for the rest of their lives.

      So, yes, I agree with you that they _ought_ to die, but don't think that we should be doing it.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    43. Re:I love moderates by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you kill someone...you have no place in a civilized society.

      So, executioners and military have no place in civilized society. I can agree with that.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    44. Re:I love moderates by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Homosexuality is a religion now? And where do you get "prosecuted" for speaking out against homosexuality? I call that bullshit.

      Oh, and by the way, people don't mock Christianity because of the bible, usually - people don't care if you don't bother them. They do it as a reaction to the Church's action through the centuries and to this day.

      "You will notice that in all disputes between Christians since the birth of the Church, Rome has always favored the doctrine which most completely subjugated the human mind and annihilated reason"

      Voltaire

    45. Re:I love moderates by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So just because some of our remote ancestors behaved like giant douchebags it's okay to let people repeat it, especially if it's in the name of religion.

      What happened to learning from history to avoid repeating its mistake? Or did i miss some clause detailing exceptions to this?

      That is precisely why it is okay. Consider science: repeatable results makes for good theories. These so-called "mistakes" have resulted in repeated success of the victors. It's probably more important to understand who benefits rather than looking at the methods.

      There are a lot of groups out there who have done just fine with war, conquest and oppression as their means. Although certainly the dead and oppressed people out there didn't like it, we need to understand that this stuff happens because it makes your state/sect/corporation more successful. If history is really a teacher, we may realize that wars, oppression and things like that are only mistakes if you don't like war and oppression. If your major concerns are more power, spreading your ideology/religion, getting rich and having a higher standard of living for yourself, then it would be a "mistake" to make peace and to cease being militarily powerful and allowing more people to have a say in things.

      For you to have any hope of ending these negative aspect for good, you need to change cultures and thought processes to put emphasis on different things. And that isn't going to happen by attacking the symptoms, as nice as it sounds to attack military spending, oil companies and intolerant religions. If you want to stop those abuses for good, you need the people to start thinking in a different way about their existence and goals as a species.

    46. Re:I love moderates by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It think the problem with saudi arabia is that the money is coming from top to the bottom. This allows for a very dangerous situation where wealthy patrons can finance/coerce those with less money to do their will. Without an independent source of supporting themselves, the young turn to the ones who say they are from God and offering them and their families money and protection. It was only really when the masses were able to provide for themselves that they were able to make more responsible decisions for themselves and their families.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    47. Re:I love moderates by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If we want Islam to go through a reformation/enlightenment, we need to bolster the economies of those countries first. People often point to Saudi Arabia as a counter-example that economy is everything in moderating belief, but to me, all that points to is that a country surrounded by conservative/radical Islamic countries, has a hard time becoming moderate on its own.

      I disagree. Those economies are never going to improve, unless the people change their own culture and religion. That's exactly what happened in Europe and saved it from being a theocratic hellhole. They didn't have some enlightened outsiders come in and fix up their economies to make them prosperous so they'd give up on religious wars; they fixed up their own economies.

      In a nutshell, you can't force improvement on a culture from outside. You'll always be seen as an oppressor, trying to force your ways upon them.

      The only way to treat Islam is to wall it off from the developed world. Don't allow Muslims to immigrate to advanced nations, and keep them in their own countries. Don't restrict trade with them, however (except for nuclear materials and weapons of course), but trying to merge them into Western society isn't going to work, and just pisses off the Westerners because they're being asked to accommodate the Muslims by adopting Sharia Law, Islamic dress codes, restrictions on free speech, etc. The only immigration that should be allowed is for those who have given up the religion altogether and are willing to adopt the culture of their new host country. But even those people tend to have a lot of problems with their disaffected Western-born kids, however, as seen in France where it's the second-generation Muslims that are always rioting. They need to stay in their own countries, and fix their own societies from within. However, this philosophy also means we need to get our asses out of their countries, and stop trying to control everything over there; no more military interventions (unless there's a REAL threat, like ICBMs, not some made-up threats). If there's no Western troops in their lands or manipulating their governments, they won't have an excuse for any terrorist acts against Western nations. You don't see people from the fucked-up nations of subsaharan Africa wanting to terrorize Westerners, because Western nations don't have any involvement there (mainly because there's no oil).

    48. Re:I love moderates by operagost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Canada and Sweden both have laws defining anti-homosexuality statements as "hate speech".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    49. Re:I love moderates by tnk1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Screw the reformation - the separation of church and state, constitutions and bills of right are what makes a difference!

      And every one of those are entirely useless unless everyone actually wants to believe in them and work to live inside those rules. Have you seen the constitutions of various totalitarian states like the old Soviet Union? Some of them make the US Constitution look positively lackluster in its protections. They had rights to health care, work, freedom of speech and everything.

      Of course, it doesn't matter because in those countries, their constitutions are a sham or fatally flawed by insertion of certain provisions. More importantly, they were shams because everyone knew who was really in charge and those pieces of paper were meaningless.

      Constitution alone? Worthless.

      Bill of Rights alone? A bad joke.

      Separation of Church and State? What is the point when your leader is the focal point of a cult of personality? Same shit, different century.

      The only thing that matters is the attitude of the people. If you think that the US Constitution had any hope of working without the support of the most powerful segments of the people behind it, you missed the entire Civil War in your history class.

    50. Re:I love moderates by Simetrical · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, Christianity has its roots in Judaism, which while not exactly "spread" by the point of the sword, it was advanced by the point of the sword.

      Judaism's history was a very violent one, though they were/are not particularly interested in spreading the religion, because it is a racial religion.

      First of all, the Israelites were not particularly violent by ancient standards. Remember what Rome did to Carthage, say, or what the Assyrians did to everyone they conquered. Conquering as many cities as possible and enslaving everyone was pretty standard. (This point applies equally to Islam, of course.)

      Second of all, don't conflate ancient Israel with Judaism. For much of Israel's history, most of its inhabitants were idolaters, as recorded both by archeological evidence and the Bible. Today's Jews are treated as the exclusive descendants of the Israelites only because all the other Israelites assimilated and intermarried, so we no longer know who their descendants are. By the time Israelites were all Jews as we'd recognize them today, they were already in exile and in no position to commit much violence against anyone.

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
    51. Re:I love moderates by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd argue that religion is about the ego of people not allowing for "I don't know" to be the most common answer to everything. "Why does the sun rise?" Either "I don't know" or make up something. "Why are there seasons?" Either make up something or admit you don't know. Ever notice how hard many parents try to not say "I don't know" to their children? They'll make up stuff, or go to "because I said so" or "go ask your dad/mom." But "why is the sky blue" being answered with "I don't know" just doesn't happen.

      Of course, once "God" was invented to be the default for all questions where "I don't know" would otherwise be the answer, then man corrupted the idea of a universal answer into a power grab. Religion isn't about power. People want power. They use God or guns or food or whatever they have to gain that power. Religion is a tool in the quest for power, but not the cause. It just so happens that we are so far removed from the beginnings of it that it's hard to see the difference in what "religion" is and what "those who run religions" want.

    52. Re:I love moderates by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Christianity is not about forcing a world view, religion, beliefs, or anything on anyone else. It's about spreading the good news of the Gospel to everyone so they have the choice to be saved or not.

      The teachings of Jesus may have been about that. But you only need to read as far as the Apocalypse to realize that the spirit of his teachings was being gang-raped before his body was cold (or arrived in heaven, if you prefer to believe that).

      Christianity is the second most aggressively expanding major religion of all times, exceeded only by Islam. The people of Africa and South America didn't exactly hear about this interesting new religion on the radio and decided to investigate.

      I know, you'll now offer the usual excuse that all that are just perversions of the real christianity. To which I will offer my usual reply: If we strip away all the allegedly perverted stuff, there isn't a whole lot remaining. Hundreds of years of history have never happened. Millions of people were killed. All "just perversions"? Yeah, right. If something causes that much evil and suffering, anyone who defends it is insane and refuses to see what is in plain view.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    53. Re:I love moderates by skywire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What??? How was this modded informative?

      You must be new around here. Anti-Christian posts are always modded up Informative or Insightful. The more outlandishly silly, the more so. They are the slashdot equivalent of trash-talk on the basketball court. And don't imagine that most modders take the moderation rules seriously. Modding is an expression of solidarity with the trash-talkers.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    54. Re:I love moderates by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While you can point all you want to them having beliefs in addition to the bible, their traditions are just as old, if not older than the bible itself. So, where is your justification to dismiss it?

      It's an issue of dogma. Protestants beliefe in sola scriptura, so if something cannot be shown to derive from the Scripture, then it's not sacred. Catholics (and Orthodox), on the other hand, believe in the "sacred tradition", which goes alongside the scripture - with scripture prevailing if there is a conflict, but tradition still valid and applicable otherwise.

    55. Re:I love moderates by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Athiests - who think all religions are crap, and just hope people won't be jerks about their religions.

      I disagree. They're all annoying when people use religious teachings as the basis of their argument, which is quite often even when they aren't jerks. To the rest of us, it's like arguing that cutting down the forest will kill the unicorns, it's a position that can't be reasoned with because it has no basis in reason. That's minor however compared to what really differentiates the religions.

      Let's take adultery as an example. Huge breach of Christian and Muslim belief, in the ten commandments and lust is one of the seven deadly sins. What happens to you in most of the Christian world? Nothing - at least legally. Maybe God will send you downstairs for it, but that's for Him when the time comes. How is it to be a non-Christian in a Christian country? No problem. Now, in large parts of the Muslim world that'll get you death by stoning. Does it help if you're not a Muslim? Does it help if you renounce your religion and so is no longer bound by its rules? No.

      That is what makes it scary, there's no real freedom of religion if you'll be punished by a different religion's law, including the freedom not to believe. That is what makes Islam a real threat, not religion in general. And to get back to where I started, you can't reason about Sharia because no secular argument will ever compare to the claim that it's dictated by Allah himself. It's not the spirituality in itself that is scary but it's the idea of religious law, judge, jury and executioner that frightens me. If Muslims let Allah do the judging, I wouldn't worry at all.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  2. I demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I demand a pony! I want a pony! So I can chop it's head off and put it in a Pakistani lawyer's bed.

  3. They would only be hurting themselves by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Pakistan were to actually uphold this absurd attempt, it wouldn't hurt Mark Zuckerberg (I'm pretty sure he's not planning on going to Pakistan anytime soon and no civilized country is even going to consider extradition). But it WOULD certainly hurt Pakistan (which already has a pretty bad rep to begin with). It's the equivalent of holding up a big sign to the world that reads "We're a backwards shithole, filled with intolerant Koran-thumping hicks. Don't even think about coming here or doing business here." It would be a valuable lesson on what religious fanaticism can do to your country, I suppose--especially for countries that don't have oil (the only reason any businessman from the civilized world would even be caught dead in Saudi Arabia).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That’s apparently the difference between us... I don’t believe that insulting someone’s religion should carry the death penalty.

      You’re just as bad as this idiot Pakistani lawyer.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More likely: "we're a bunch of weenies who are willing to bow to pressure from intolerant koran thumping hicks who say they want to behead us for exercising our rights."

      Pointing out the absurdity of people being offended by stupid things is nothing to be ashamed about. Here, I'll even do it right now: 8===D O: That is Muhammad sucking a massive cock, for those unaware.

      What facebook should be ashamed of is that they bowed to pressure from these lunatics.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    3. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I support his execution for other reasons, such as his crappy facebook privacy games.

    4. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by mdm-adph · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Koran-thumping hicks" is my new phrase of the month. Thank you.

      --
      It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
    5. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What if that religious fanaticism happens to be the religion that controls a major portion of the oil in the world? Islamic countries tend to stick together for no other reason than they happen to be islamic.

      It also is a sign of things to come: more countries will sue citizens of other countries for what they did on the Internet. There is a real risk that this will impede business all over the world.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by Ephemeriis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and what sign does facebook hold to the world?
      "we're a backwards shithole, filled with idiots who will insult your religion just because they know nothing makes you more mad."

      kill them all.

      Facebook?

      I dunno... Something like "people will willingly share any information you ask for as long as they can play crappy flash games with their friends" I'd imagine.

      Or are you referring to the whole Draw Muhammad thing? Because that wasn't really Facebook-sponsored. It did have a presence on Facebook... But it was started elsewhere and spread just about everywhere.

      And while I'll agree that it's kind of dickish to intentionally piss someone off just for the hell of it... I don't think it is OK to impose your religious beliefs on someone else who does not share them. Nor do I think it is OK to execute somebody for making fun of your religion.

      So, what kind of sign does the whole Draw Muhammad thing hold to the world? Maybe something like "we value freedom of speech and aren't going to let some religious fundamentalists shut us up."

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    7. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nowhere did I say that was the only thing. They should also be ashamed of luring people unsuspecting people into giving up any idea of privacy they may have had, among other things.

      That's a completely different story however, and they absolutely should not be ashamed of offending a bunch of koran thumping hicks.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    8. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by countSudoku() · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am reminded by a trip to the southern US; FL, MS, GA, AL, TX, by my favorite TV team at Top Gear... where they fled for their lives from some AL hick town whilst playing some gags with unpopular slogans on their cars. I can rework the quote to be closer to home:

      In Alabama; "We're a backwards shithole, filled with intolerant Bible-thumping hicks. Don't even think about coming here or doing business here."

      There now, aren't we just a bit more tolerant of our own backward, Cristian shitheads? Me neither. Fuck all religions! Especially YOURS!

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    9. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you are NOTHING.

      Says the man e-raging on slashdot.

      Regardless of what you say (or I for that matter), Pakistan is still a backwards shithole, this lawyer is still a certified idiot, Muhammed was still a pedophile, and Islam is still not a religion of peace. Deal with it.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    10. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by SirRedTooth · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then they shouldn't get mad. Funny how THEY can scream death to America on their streets but when we merely draw their 'messenger' its bad and so wrong. Screw religion and all the idiot sheep who follow it.

    11. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Funny

      keep poking the muslims, who you claim are not peaceful, with a stick and see what happens.

      ah, but I've already learned what happens: I get e-raged at by Michael Kristopeit who proceeds to CAPS at me while telling me he's not raging, while making passive aggressive threats. Kind of like Muslims who demand the beheading of those who challenge Islam's peacefulness.

      Most amusing.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    12. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Funny

      And let me guess: you won't die because Allah has granted you eternal life and 72 virgins for so deftly defeating enemies of Islam on the internet with your fine words? Is that about right?

      hilarious indeed.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    13. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by gfreeman · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not bowing to pressure, it's ensuring their survival by making damn sure that some lunatic with deep pockets doesn't put a million dollar death sentence bounty on their head. Salman Rushdie still can't come out of hiding to this day...

      Sure he can. In fact I can supply a list of his upcoming public appearances if you like.
      http://www.randomhouse.com/rhpg/features/salmanrushdie/appearances.html

      He was here in Toronto a couple of weeks back, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/01/rushdie-wiesel-toronto.html

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    14. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by Grave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The right to freely speak your mind is secured by the US Bill of Rights. With freedom comes responsibility. That responsibility includes recognizing that while you may not like what someone says, it's never justification for violent retaliation against them for it. And if one of those folks who participated were to be killed in a suicide bombing or other retaliatory act? The world would collectively condemn radical Islam, just as it has every other time. Standing up to extremists of any religion or politic is not just a right--it's a moral duty. The way in which it is done, however, needs to be tempered with the intent to actually make a change.

      Of course, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to Pakistan; it'd be stupid to expect it to. So while the legal system in Pakistan may allow for execution for those who would draw a picture of Mohammad, these acts did not occur on Pakistani soil, and thus are not subject to Pakistani laws and jurisdictions. If a resident of Pakistan chose to do this, they would be foolish if they didn't expect to be prosecuted for it.

    15. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by lgw · · Score: 2, Funny

      Never argue with a man who can't master the intricacies of the shift key. You might as well be competing in the Special Olympics.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2

      So the way I see it, that statement can reasonably be interpreted in two ways:

      1) That is a threat against my life.
      2) I hit the nail on the head, your a terribly offend-able muslim that somehow found his way onto the internet and got worked up into a tizzy by a slashdot comment.

      So, which is it? Both maybe? Somehow I'm not terribly concerned regardless.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    17. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Didn't seem to work too well on this guy. And considering the quality of hit man they tend to send, I would say Zuckerberg would have more to fear from Wile E. Coyote.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:They would only be hurting themselves by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would you like a public execution, shared with friends, shared with your networks, shared with friends of friends, or shared with one of your lists?

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  4. You know... by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... while the wider implications are scary, I'm not sure I really have a problem with this particular case. Think they could make Four Square a crime against humanity while they're at it?

    1. Re:You know... by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 2, Funny

      With any luck they'll go after Twitter next.

  5. It comes down to... by icsx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Islam - a religion of peace. Are you serious?

    1. Re:It comes down to... by bynary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure! As long as you define peace as "getting rid of everyone who disagrees with me."

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    2. Re:It comes down to... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Christianity not being a "religion of peace" (no news here, don't think you are so terribly insightful) doesn't mean that Islam is. Both are free to be ridiculed at the same time.

      On the other hand, this article is definitively about Islam, so that is what's being discussed.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    3. Re: It comes down to... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Islam - a religion of peace. Are you serious?

      Has your favorite religion ever killed anyone?

      What you'll find with Islam, like any other religion with millions of followers, is that the adherents hold a broad variety of attitudes. Best not to judge all by the behavior of some, just as with skin color, nationality, hairstyle, or anything else.

      Heck, I remember seeing on the news in the '90s where two sects of Buddhist monks were going at it with quarterstaffs, fighting over control of a shrine.

      I met Iranian Moslems in college who were thoroughly westernized.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:It comes down to... by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The crusades were politically motivated and it’s a shame everyone believed the religious excuse that was used to keep people interested in a perpetual bloody conflict.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:It comes down to... by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, i would be more worried about that if it comes from a country where death penalty is still on use, that have deportation treaties with most countries (and if that fails, have no problem in taking other approachs), and that consider big crimes things that in other cultures could be something accepted or normal. And im not talking about Pakistan exactly.

    6. Re:It comes down to... by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So by your reasoning, the next time some thug who happens to be an atheist kills someone, it proves all atheists are potential murders?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    7. Re:It comes down to... by subsoniq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, because one lawyer officially represents the views of all 1 billion Muslims. Just like Rousas John Rushdoony officially represents the views of all Christians, Including the view that your children should be taken from you and stoned to death if they disobey you.

      If you think kooks like this in far away Pakistan are dangerous take a look in your own backyard, the Christian Reconstructionists want to do away with Democracy and turn the American government into a Christian version of the Taliban. There are homicidal crazy people in just about any social group.

    8. Re:It comes down to... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Politically motivated or not, religion was a useful tool to justify them. Without that tool, they would have had to fall back on reason, which means they might have found it a lot harder to justify their position.

    9. Re:It comes down to... by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but it means if there is a growing trend of atheists liking people in the name of atheism, it would not go unnoticed as a new rise in religious fanaticism.

    10. Re: It comes down to... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Best not to judge all by the behavior of some, just as with skin color, nationality, hairstyle, or anything else.

      I dunno, I think it's safe to assume that anyone with a mullet has a tendency to beat people with a hockey stick.

    11. Re: It comes down to... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that with Islam it's not just the random followers that promote violent spreading of islam. It's the original founder.

      Not sure what point that's supposed to make. Large swaths of Europe were converted to Christianity at sword point.

      Oh, and there's that old "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Lots of religions send mixed messages.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    12. Re:It comes down to... by VickiM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Was there a difference? Didn't most kings of the time claim to rule by divine right, given to them by God?

    13. Re:It comes down to... by c++0xFF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Serious question:

      Could the same be said for current conflicts? Is people's belief in Islam just being used as an excuse to continue a political/economic conflict?

    14. Re:It comes down to... by SakuraDreams · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anything can be justified. The ultimate conclusion to the logic you employ (get rid of religion in case it is used again after a 1000 years to justify war even though it teaches against violence) is to get rid of everything which can usefully be used to justify anything negative. Newspapers can be used to justify war or sway public opinion with pseudo-intellectual cr-p or with pseudo-science and so they too should be removed. Oh, you say papers are free - well in a Capitalist society they're not - the owner has last say - so get rid of Capitalism too. Get rid of everything. :-) How absurd is that?

      The Crusades had many motivations. We've learned to avoid them now. Christianity is no longer uses as an excuse to start wars or defend against them. Christianity itself has realised the error of its ways from within itself. The Scripture is right there - "Thou Shalt not kill", "turn the other cheek", "shake the sandals off your feet and leave" in places where they reject you and not kill them instead - and so on. These are pretty nice ideals. If we keep them we have more choice at the end - we still have freedom to follow the good and reject what we don't like - Mr Atheist can still agree with "thou shalt not kill" but reject all that supernatural stuff. Bigger choice - better value and if it helps some people get on with their lives - all the better. :-)

  6. Sure, why not? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We seem to be willing to cave to the Muslim extremists in every other way, so why not this one too? Surely it's only sensible to be pussies every time the extremists pressure us, life and liberty be damned!

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    1. Re: Sure, why not? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      How about the fact that DoD was so infested with political correctness that it ignored the warning signs regarding a Muslim service member whom later went on a shooting rampage and killed over a dozen innocent people?

      There's also Comedy Central's hypocrisy -- they allow South Park (and Jon Stewart to a lesser extent) to rip every other religion to shreds but refuse to allow them to do the same to Islam.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re: Sure, why not? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The one that springs to mind is Comedy Central's censoring of South Park (twice!) because they were afraid of offending Muslims. The general PC belief seems to me to be that we need to avoid offending the poor Muslims at any cost, which is of course asinine.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  7. A Modest Proposal: Thunderdome by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pakistani Lawyer Wants Mark Zuckerberg Executed

    That's not "a nightmare scenario of legal jurisdiction". That's an opportunity. Allow me to sever the Gordian knot of tangled jurisdictional issues with justice, THUNDERDOME style.

    Tonight's card: Muslim Fundamentalist Lawyer vs. Mark Zuckerberg. Two men enter, one world wins.

    1. Re:A Modest Proposal: Thunderdome by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please, can't we just get beyond Thunderdome?

      Agreed, we don't need another hero.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  8. Get in the queue buddy... by xtracto · · Score: 2, Funny

    nt

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:Get in the queue buddy... by xtracto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And on a more serious note... what does the people who want the UK Hacker extradited and tried in the USA think of this?... after all the crime was commited in Pakistan (showing drawings of Teh Propeth) no?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:Get in the queue buddy... by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See, hacking government computers is illegal everywhere, recognized by a crime by two allies who have an extradition treaty with each other. "Blasphemy" isn't a crime in America, or most of the non-Muslim world. Pakistan is basically the world's Arkansas and no one takes them seriously. There is no moral or legal equivalent.

    3. Re:Get in the queue buddy... by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 2, Informative

      See, hacking government computers is illegal everywhere, recognized by a crime by two allies who have an extradition treaty with each other.

      Odd thing about that treaty, when the U.S. used it in this case to get extradition ordered the U.S. hadn't ratified it yet. The U.K. had but not the U.S..

  9. No problemo... by tekrat · · Score: 5, Funny

    All the Pakistanis have to do is give us Osama Bin Laden first!
    In the meantime, we'll keep Mark in a nice safe cave built by the CIA.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:No problemo... by bynary · · Score: 5, Funny

      Where's the "Like" button on Slashdot?

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
  10. This should be interesting... by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It should probably be noted, that the US has an extradition treaty with Pakistan, the court could in theory demand extradition of Mark Zuckerberg by US authorities, to be turned over to the custody of the court in Pakistan, to face the charges.

    I thought the US was the only country that thought it could apply its laws to anyone in the world, even its own citizens when they don't reside in the country.

    1. Re:This should be interesting... by mkiwi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought the US was the only country that thought it could apply its laws to anyone in the world, even its own citizens when they don't reside in the country.

      No, people are assholes pretty much anywhere.

    2. Re:This should be interesting... by characterZer0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless Facebook is running servers in Pakistan or Zuckerberg has been to Pakistan, he did not commit a crime in Pakistan. The US authorities will note that fact.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    3. Re:This should be interesting... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, Facebook has customers in Pakistan, and that is probably enough, for FB to be considered a fugitive.

      However, it should probably be noted that Zuckerberg is NOT facebook.

      Can you imagine what would happen if CEOs for companies were actually personally criminally responsible for any illegal action anyone at their company committed, or that their company enabled any customer to commit?

      If that were true we might have companies actually following the law....

    4. Re:This should be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In most western countries extradition treaties are only in force when there is sufficient similarity in the law and the potential punishment. So Mark is safe in the U.S., but in other countries like Egypt or Turkey he might be in some danger.

    5. Re:This should be interesting... by corbettw · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't be extradited from the US for doing something that isn't a crime here.

      That said, I really think Zuckerberg needs to man up and go to Pakistan. He wanted to "respect" those ignorant savages by turning off groups critical of them; now he can show just how much respect he has by putting his neck on the chopping block.

      Man up, asshole. You lied down with dogs, you can't complain about all the fleas now.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    6. Re:This should be interesting... by corbettw · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mohammad was a child-raping psychopath and Allah doesn't exist.

      There, now CmdrTaco can't go to Dubai.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  11. Slight overreaction by BrotherBeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...a nightmare scenario of legal jurisdiction on the Internet...

    Exaggerate much? This is up there with the summary from a few years ago about how the squid's beak will revolutionize engineering .

    --
    I'm disabling ads until because I choose not to reward redesigns that are less usable than "view source".
  12. Mark Zuckerberg by jamesyouwish · · Score: 5, Funny

    should unfriend the Pakistani Lawyer

  13. Here is a better reason by bigredradio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think the pages for "Draw Muhammad Day" is that big a deal. FarmTown, now THAT is a reason for execution.

  14. Can't wait for HTML5 by SlappyBastard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once canvas takes over, we draw can Muhammad every fucking where.

    It's sad, because I really want to support executing Zuckerberg. But . . .

    I get the general religious offense in drawings of Muhammad. In that regard, it's like the Piss Crucifix. But, I don't see the need for the great animus behind all this. I mean, are Muslims really such pussies they can't take a fucking joke about their Prophet? Also, isn't this sort of elevating the Prophet to the level of a deity? And if so, doesn't that sort of nullify the Muslism creed (there is no god but God, and the stick figure behind the "censored" blackout bar is His Prophet)?

    In the meantime, here's a fucking ASCII drawing of Muhammad . . .

    O ----( Allahu akbar! ) -|- | /\

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    1. Re: Can't wait for HTML5 by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, are Muslims really such pussies they can't take a fucking joke about their Prophet?

      A large number of Americans think people should go to prison for burning a frikkin' flag.

      There are intolerant assholes everywhere.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Can't wait for HTML5 by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was at the Vatican Museum in 1994 and down in a basement they had a exhibit of modern art depicting Christ or the Virgin Mary, my friend and I (both Jews) came across stuff that would be at least as controversial as Piss Christ. One had Christ and the Virgin naked in bed, yet there it was in the Vatican.

      That would not fly in Islam in any way shape or form, hell, you won't find a depiction of Mohammad in Mecca, Medina or the Temple Mount.

    3. Re:Can't wait for HTML5 by SlappyBastard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Rule 34 may be the reason they prefer Muhammad be blacked out.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  15. Dark Ages by Jerrry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet another example showing that the Islamic world is still in the Dark Ages that most of the rest of the world emerged from sometime in the 13th century.

    1. Re:Dark Ages by King+InuYasha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think about it, the Islamic world is entering an era that the Christian European world entered in the 13th century. At that time, the Islamic world was at the forefront of scientific discovery. They collaborated with Indians and created a lot of concepts that we use in modern mathematics, and many interesting inventions came about during that time (Candy anyone?).

      Now the Islamic world is swinging far back and trying very hard to resist social advancement that's been happening in most parts of the world for the better part of the 20th century.

    2. Re:Dark Ages by divisionbyzero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet another example showing that the Islamic world is still in the Dark Ages that most of the rest of the world emerged from sometime in the 13th century.

      and to which Christian fundamentalists want to drag us back.

    3. Re:Dark Ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's funny how most comments in response to genuine criticism are "bbbbbut the Christians!!!!" instead of responding to the actual issue.

  16. The dangers of submitting to local community rules by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess this is a development that no one really foresaw in the early stages of the Internet: instead of creating a global village with a global set of social mores, the Internet is creating a global court room where every jurisdiction can claim tort against anybody who does something over the Internet. Furthermore, it was always implicitly assumed (especially in the US) that the Internet users would adopt, or at least move to American moral standards. Instead, we're discovering that there are plenty of communities out there who are happy to apply their local standards to the world, and that these communities have enough power to at least make life uncomfortable for everyone.

    There is a lesson here. Actually, there are two lessons here. One, Americans aren't the only ones willing to export their values, and they will have a difficult time arguing that others shouldn't. Two, we can lay to rest the notion that the Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it: nations have enough power, and those in power have enough incentive, to use the other code base to control the Internet - the code of law.

    I have a sneaking suspicion I know which one is going to win, and it's going to give geeks heartburn all over the world.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  17. Jurisdiction by NixieBunny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't think that Mark Zuckerberg is under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani police. He doesn't live there, he isn't a citizen of Pakistan, he didn't even commit this infraction himself.

    Of course, I am not a Pakistani lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice, Mark.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  18. This is why the US is "anti"-Islamic-terrorist by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And yet people get so upset and claim that the US "made" the terrorists. I guess they did. Just like Mark Z. did. It does not take much for a western to anger someone. In fact, most people on slashdot would be likely candidates for execution; most of them deny that Allah exists.

    But what we really need to do is talk about this with them and come to an understanding...

    And by the way, Israel is bad. Israel shouldn't have a blockade, Hamas isn't really a big threat. They just want to "execute" Israel...

    Hm.

    1. Re:This is why the US is "anti"-Islamic-terrorist by the_womble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really. The US made terrorists by:

      1) Giving money and training to Osama bin Laden and others of that type.
      2) Supporting the extremist government of Saudi Arabia, which keeps that country fundamentalist and backward, and pouring money into fundamentalism elsewhere.

      I few months ago I heard Fatima Bhutto talking about how (moderate) Sufism was being displaced by (fundamentalist) Wahabism because of the financial backing the Wahabis have.

    2. Re:This is why the US is "anti"-Islamic-terrorist by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "extremist" government of Saudi Arabia gets most of its money from oil. The US is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only consumer of said oil.

      There were crazy Islamists (sorry for the redundancy) in Pakistan, etc. a long before the US was even on the scene. Look up India's history with said Mohammedans and their invasions, and what they did about it: hint, they (what we now know as ghurkas) fought like sons-of-bitches. The result of their failure is Pakistan.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:This is why the US is "anti"-Islamic-terrorist by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Informative

      Israel has given up land.

      Israel appears to think the current national entity should not be a national entity, but appears to be willing to allow people to live there, in the name of peace.

      Hamas, on the other hand, thinks all Israel - the Jewish PEOPLE - be killed. They don't care about the political status of Israel, they hate the Jews.

      That's a big difference. One is anti-ethnic-group (genocide), and the other is anti-political-entity (mmmm land dispute, nation dispute, not genocide).

      By the way, if Israel doesn't acknowledge the right for Palestine to exist, why do they allow ANY aid into Gaza? On one hand, you have Israel allowing aid (yes, we can argue about how well they are doing that, but they ARE doing it). On the other hand, we have Hamas actively trying to kill all the Jews in Israel. Hmmmmm. Yup, sounds very equal to me, as your one-liner seemed to imply... [/sarcasm]

  19. Islam question by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could someone explain why some Muslims believe that their rules need to apply to non-Muslims?

    As a point of contrast, many Christians believe that their primary responsibility is to not themselves sin. Secondarily is to encourage their fellow Christian to avoid sinning; this includes (at the worst) kicking people out of the church when they're chronically unwilling to shape up. But But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.

    So what is it about some Muslim theologies that leads them to try to, for example, feel justified and/or compelled to try to kill Dutch cartoonists and Facebook executives?

    1. Re:Islam question by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Could someone explain why some Muslims believe that their rules need to apply to non-Muslims?

      Because the Koran is not just a book of religion with philosophy, it also presents the plans for civil government, laws, and punishments as well. That's the entire Sharia law that you hear about when talking about Muslim countries and the Taliban. It doesn't just apply to Muslims because it is stating the laws that their government should use for everybody under its jurisdiction, believers and non-believers.

    2. Re:Islam question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a point of contrast, many Christians believe that their primary responsibility is to not themselves sin. Secondarily is to encourage their fellow Christian to avoid sinning; this includes (at the worst) kicking people out of the church when they're chronically unwilling to shape up. But But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.

      Tell that to teh gehys.

    3. Re:Islam question by oldave · · Score: 2, Informative

      But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.

      Don't get out much, do you?

      Check out every attempt to create state lotteries, every place where alcohol sales/consumption questions come up, etc., etc...

      Anytime there is any suggestion of changing laws to permit something that Christians find "sinful," they will be out in full force attempting to defeat it. In other words, doing their damnedest to impose their standards on everyone.

      They just don't, usually, blow themselves (and others) up over the issue.

      It's not a new trend, either... seems I heard something about some Crusades that happened a while back.

    4. Re:Islam question by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.

      There are plenty of concrete examples, the laws on sex toys in some of the predominantly Christian US states being the first that spring to mind, of Christian sensibilities being forced on the population at large. Same goes for the occasional Christian nutjob who kills an abortion clinic worker. In a slightly more broad context, evangelism is directly intended to change the behaviour of non-Christians, although I suppose that you could argue that by making them become Christians they are no longer part of their original group.

      Both religions are following the same template, but the reaction in Islamic countries appears more extreme. It seems that the difference in the reaction owes more to how developed the country is than to the predominant religion, though. It just happens to be the case that many less-developed middle eastern countries are predominantly Muslim while much of the west is Christian. Look at the brutality carried out in the name of Christianity in some African nations for further evidence of this.

    5. Re: Islam question by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could someone explain why some Muslims believe that their rules need to apply to non-Muslims?

      As a point of contrast, many Christians believe that their primary responsibility is to not themselves sin. Secondarily is to encourage their fellow Christian to avoid sinning; this includes (at the worst) kicking people out of the church when they're chronically unwilling to shape up. But But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.

      And yet it's trivially easy to find Christians right here in the enlightened USofA who do exactly that.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Islam question by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was probably a mistake for me to claim Christian theology as a point of contrast.

      No, you were correct. Olddave is confusing theology with action. Non-Christians are "the world", and while teaching and proselytizing are things Christians are enjoined to do for "the world", laying a smack-down for sins isn't part of the religion. Of course, the legal system, with business permits etc. is another issue entirely. I'm sure plenty of non-Christians oppose things that might affect their communities too.

  20. Look at it this way... by mdm-adph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if you look at it from their perspective, that Mark Zuckerberg is somehow guilty because he's "enabling" these "offensive" actions on his website, doesn't that make their entire religion guilty because they're enabling the grisly murders of people like Daniel Pearl, or hell, all of 9/11?

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  21. They are going to end up executing their savior by Rivalz · · Score: 2

    If you think about it. If Mohammed actually ever came to meet his people. They'd execute the guy for defaming himself. I mean seriously who the hell could live up to the hype that they've been pumping for generations. Aren't they at least a little bit embarrassed by this?

  22. It's a real risk for Zuckerman by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a real problem for Zuckerman. He's previously made fund-raising trips to Dubai. That's over. The UAE has blasphemy laws, which they enforce. The UAE also has an extradition treaty with Pakistan, but not with the United States. So he can no longer visit Dubai, and is unlikely to get funding from any source in the Arab world. He can't even fly Emirates Air.

    1. Re:It's a real risk for Zuckerman by tsalmark · · Score: 3, Informative

      When traveling outside your own country it is a good idea to plan for court systems that use the guilty unless proven innocent system.

  23. Would they settle for a plea bargin? by Rivalz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would they be willing to settle for a plea bargin of having a drawing of Mark Z executed on national television?

  24. In related news... by arielCo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pakistan's Deputy Attorney General is preparing to also file charges against the blasphemous group Anonymous and his leader 'moot' for their continued and aggravated offenses against ... pretty fucking much everything.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  25. Really? Is this where we can tell Pakistan by poet · · Score: 3, Funny

    To bite America's shiny metal ass?

    --
    Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
  26. Not fair! by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just earlier this month I WANTED to strangle Zuckerberg. How is it possible for these assholes to suck the fun out of everything?

  27. So we're judging the entire muslim world by Xaedalus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    based on the actions of their equivalent of Jack Thompson? Oh way to go there. Let's show the rest of the non-Judeo Christian based world just how merciful and understanding we really are.

    Here's a thought. Why don't we read up on what actual Islam is, versus the supremacist Arab culture that permeates and corrupts it. Karen Armstrong did a wonderful job of pointing out what Islam actually is, and how Arab culture with it's tradition of jahilliyeh has since permeated and corrupted it (note to the curious - Wahibist Islam is a fundamentalist version of Islam where the clerics try to reconcile the pre-Mohammed "heroic" cultural mores of Arab tribal culture with Islam itself - which is what Mohammed explicitly fought against).

    but wait. It's far easier to learn programming, and read physics textbooks, and read Dawkins/Hitchens, and other men bloviating about the evils of religion, when they don't even have any real expertise in theology to begin with (Dawkins is a BIOLOGIST). And therefore, when one Muslim version of Jack Thompson goes with an attention-getting stunt, we automatically do to the entire muslim world what people who didn't understand gaming did to us gamers - we stereotype and hate. Way to go, there.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    1. Re:So we're judging the entire muslim world by kanweg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's far easier to learn programming, and read physics textbooks, and read Dawkins/Hitchens, and other men bloviating about the evils of religion, when they don't even have any real expertise in theology to begin with (Dawkins is a BIOLOGIST)."

      OK, it is a deal if the religious people tear the "how mankind got there" chapter out of their story book. After all, they are not biologists.

      Would demanding that the theological experts stop talking about religion until they have a shred of evidence for the existence of (their!) deity be taking it too far? If they're the experts... . I know Dawkins does provide evidence every time he discusses evolution.

      Bert
      Who somehow still thinks that Dawkins knows more about religion than a creationist about biology.

  28. Re:grow some skin by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Muslims consider the Christian and Jewish G-d to be Allah and Jesus to be a prophet. They are unlikely to make fun of them. Islam's crime is rather the denigration of all non-Muslims into non-humans.

  29. Re:The dangers of submitting to local community ru by digsbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Regarding exporting values, you make a good point. If Pakistan has broad-based support for such a measure, they should simply cut off access to FaceBook nationwide. Self-determination, right? Just because we believe in freedom of speech (even when used to inflame and insult) doesn't mean we have to mandate that same value for them.
    Also, I wonder what the people who post insulting things about someone else's religion think they're achieving. Is there any beneficial outcome from that?

  30. Depends what you mean. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That depends what you mean when you say "Christianity". If you are referring to the "churches" where things are hierarchically structured and they teach that you must adhere to a strict system of "beliefs" or "doctrine" or "theology" then you are correct. Ironically, the Bible comes out strongly against those things and that way of doing things. It seems that either "Christians" haven't read it, or they didn't understand it. In that regard, "Christians" are much worse than followers of most religions, since don't practice what they preach in any noticeable way (the very act of instituting "Churches" runs contrary to the Bible). Jesus certainly wouldn't be allowed in "Church", they'd probably stone him if he went up before them preaching some of the things the Bible says he preached.

    1. Re:Depends what you mean. by chooks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jesus certainly wouldn't be allowed in "Church", they'd probably stone him if he went up before them preaching some of the things the Bible says he preached.

      Like what?

      "Love one another as I have loved you" :(

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
    2. Re:Depends what you mean. by et764 · · Score: 2, Informative

      the very act of instituting "Churches" runs contrary to the Bible

      I'm curious what you mean by this. Many of the letters in the New Testament are written to churches, and it seems that these must have been started or instituted in some way. The Bible even talks about some church organization, with bishops/pastors/elders (the terms are used interchangeably in the Bible) overseeing the spiritual needs of each church and deacons acting as servants of the church. Of course, I'd agree that any organization beyond this goes against what's in the Bible. The Bible definitely goes against building elaborate, word-wide hierarchies, adding to or changing (including ignoring) teachings of the Bible, and a lot of practices that are common in so many churches today.

      I apologize if you knew all this already, you certainly do seem knowledgeable. I just wanted to clarify what point you were making.

    3. Re:Depends what you mean. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its meaningless to say you are a Christian or a member of a particular church unless you share its essential beliefs.

      There was a man traveling through the land, casting out demons. When the apostles saw it, they told him to stop because he was not one of them. When they told Jesus what they'd done, Jesus told them that they shouldn't have made him stop because whoever is not against us is with us. What then, do you suppose he would say about your claim that "Its meaningless to say you are a Christian or a member of a particular church unless you share its essential beliefs." I'll tell, you, he wouldn't have cared about your precious "essential beliefs".

      You mean the Bible that was compiled by the ..um.. church?

      Yes. Have you read it? It says that.

      Like what?

      That you should give away all your money. That you should accept and love all people. That you should hate your father and your mother. That you should not abide in laws and rules, but rather focus on love. That you shouldn't lord over each other. Pretty much the whole of the gospel message has been thoroughly rejected and rationalized away by the "church".

    4. Re:Depends what you mean. by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, but what that means is subject to interpretation.

      If you have a "christian" who says he has accepted Jesus as his savior (and perhaps understands that intellectually), but runs a large corporation that makes money by exploiting the poor, is Jesus his Lord?

      Likewise, if you have a "humanist" who doesn't believe in the power of God (intellectually) but knows Jesus' teachings and gives away his wealth to the poor and takes in orphans to care for them, is Jesus his Lord?

      Your belief is only worth the part of it that carries through into your actions.

    5. Re:Depends what you mean. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Strictly speaking, Jesus never command you to do any of those things (nor to believe anything). He did command a couple things (love God, love one and other, make disciples of all nations) and he was pretty clear that doing those things was of paramount importance. He never (as far as I'm noticed in all my readings) placed any emphasis in belief, though some people misread faith as belief.

      Here's my beef with belief. People will say they believe something, and intellectually that may be true, but if they don't practice it they don't believe it in their heart. That is worthless

    6. Re:Depends what you mean. by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, but what I'm saying is that the business man has not made the choice (even though he claims he believes) and the humanist has made the choice (even though he claims he does not believe). The choice is following Jesus, not "believing" in the intellectual sense. I'm not saying that people don't screw up, but the Lord knows your heart. People who do not believe enough to act likely don't believe at all.

    7. Re:Depends what you mean. by Creedo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The books as a whole are mythology. Even the Greek myths incorporated bits of historical elements into the narratives. The fact that there may be kernels of historical truth don't make the whole anything other than myth. A bad, morally disturbing myth.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  31. Re:In other news by Rivalz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think you being in their presence might be punishment enough.

  32. Wrong! Wrong! Just briming over with wrongability! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Two, we can lay to rest the notion that the Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it: nations have enough power, and those in power have enough incentive, to use the other code base to control the Internet - the code of law.

    Wrong. When Pakistan starts behaving like lunatics, the rest of the Internet will just bypass them. They might be able to exert some control within their borders, but that will at worst, cause the rest of the Internet to stop at the edge of their borders/routers. They are damaged, we will ignore them and route around them.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  33. Re:Slashdot Posters Want Pakistani Lawyer Executed by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think it's more likely that Slashdot posters want Zuckerburg executed too, only for different reasons. My personal feeling it death is too good for the guy who founded Facebook and caused me to waste so much of my time.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  34. Re: Pony by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  35. Re:Slashdot Posters Want Pakistani Lawyer Executed by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you've ever logged on to Facebook, you have only yourself to blame. I like Zuckerburg - after investors complained about the company's wasteful spending, wondering whether he was wasting all their money on hookers and blow, Zuckerburg once filed an expense report itemizing his expenses as "hookers and blow". He's the hero of anyone who has ever struggled with getting expenses denied.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  36. Re:The biggest protector of child molesters by SirWhoopass · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Reformation resulted in a new branch of Christianity, toppling the rule that the Vatican had.

    While the Roman Catholic Church did have a degree of reformation, its particular flaws are beside the point. The issue is that that a huge segment of Christianity formally went in a different direction.

  37. Christians do this all the time by hellfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what is it about some Muslim theologies that leads them to try to, for example, feel justified and/or compelled to try to kill Dutch cartoonists and Facebook executives?

    It's the same thing that compels born again christians to travel to Utah and tell them how wrong they are for their beliefs. It's the same thing that compels radical christian groups to lobby the United States Congress to pass an amendment declaring marriage being between one man and one woman. It's the same thing that compels extremists to gun down Abortion doctors and harass those who work at Abortion clinics.

    This is not something that Muslims have a monopoly on.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  38. Re:Slashdot Posters Want Pakistani Lawyer Executed by eln · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're about 15 years too late to be wishing for fewer newbs and lamers on "your" Internet. That ship has sailed, my friend.

  39. Re:The biggest protector of child molesters by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh like Islam is any better.

    Child brides, pederasty, repression of women, homosexuality as a crime with the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen.

    I'd bet that more young males are molested in countries like Morocco a year due to the repressed sexuality Islam imposes than have been molested by all the Catholic priests in the last thirty years.

    The son of one of Hamas's founders admits that the social restrictions on dating and sex in Islam and the Middle Eastern tribal society is one of the leading causes of militarism in Islam.

  40. Re:Slashdot Posters Want Pakistani Lawyer Executed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Other then this one bad guy, pakistan is a great country, never had a thing wrong with it, no sort of long running history of issues, the people are peaceful and loving, the cities are beautiful and wealthy, everyone loves going to church. Such a great loss for man if it was destroyed.

  41. the inquisition is still in the Catholic Church by peter303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The current Pope led that office until he became Pope.

  42. Sorry man by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But it is not just one guy. I don't care what people want to say Islam is supposed to be, you have to take what it in. In particular, look at the countries that are Islamic countries. They are almost to a one fundamentalist dictatorships of one form or another. You have Iran that has sham elections but is run by a "Supreme Leader" that is a cleric and an "Assembly of Experts" also clerics. You have Saudi Arabia, a long standing monarchy where they don't use lawyers but clerics in court and so on. The actual implementation of Islam is stuck back in the crusades and no amount of explaining away can change that. I don't care if that's not what it is "supposed" to be, that's what it is. I'm not going to say that Christian behavior in the actual crusades was ok because it was "Actually Christian". Sorry, it was what the vast majority of the follower of that faith did at the time. Doesn't matter if the book said they shouldn't, they did and justified it with their faith.

    This is the same kind of crap from the people who cry that every single communist state "Isn't a real communism," and therefore communism is still a fine idea. Well strictly speaking that may be the case but practically speaking when communism is implemented, you get the USSR or Vietnam or Cuba and so on.

    It's all the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Oh those guys aren't TRUE Muslims. Yes, they are. They identify as Muslim, they follow the basics, they are Muslim. They may not be what you think a Muslim should be, but they still are.

  43. Firm but fair by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a firm but fair response to everything that is Facebook. I don't think anyone could have a problem with this.

    Proceed! :D

  44. Re:The biggest protector of child molesters by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Funny

    The son of one of Hamas's founders admits that the social restrictions on dating and sex in Islam and the Middle Eastern tribal society is one of the leading causes of militarism in Islam.

    Or, in the words of Mr/Ms. Garrison:

    "Put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim - it's Friday night, but you can't have sex. And you can't jack off. There's sand in your eyes, and probably in the crack of your ass. Then some cartoon comes along from some country where people are getting laid and mocks your prophet. Well, y'know what?! I'd be pretty pissed off too!"

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  45. Boy, bad luck there... by seebs · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet he wishes Facebook had taken some kind of minimal steps to offer decent privacy now, huh.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  46. Re:The biggest protector of child molesters by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

    Theocracy in Europe was parallel to secular authority. They each had their own courts, own tax system, etc. Yes, there was fighting over who was really in charge, which escalated into open war, but for the average guy on the farm the cvhuch was a government he had better obey. Post-reformation the secular governments had won, and in many places you could even decide to go to a differenct church if you wanted to.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  47. Zuckerberg should just buy their lame ass country by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then he could throw the stupid Pakistani lawyer in jail.

  48. Re:Slashdot Posters Want Pakistani Lawyer Executed by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hate to break the news to you, but Islam simply doesn't play nice with...well I'd say any non Islamists, but look at Sunni VS Shia. Have you seen the translated videos from the tribal region? Little 6 year old singing lovely songs with words like "I'll get to Allah with the heads of Americans and Jews on my belt". They ain't raising kids there, they are raising future suicide bombers.

    As it is all of Europe will be a Sharia law hellhole in under 40 years, simply because Muslims treat their women like cattle, and keep them pregnant. Whether we like it or not sooner or later it is gonna be all out US VS Them, simply because they refuse to respect the right of non Muslims to exist. Look at what happens to countries that get beyond 50%, they turn into violent backward hellholes. They simply don't play nice, and appeasement don't get you anything but laughed at by them. Sorry, but peace and love doesn't work if the other guy thinks you don't have the right to live, and with Islam that is pretty much the way it is.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  49. Re:The biggest protector of child molesters by Tom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The son of one of Hamas's founders admits that the social restrictions on dating and sex in Islam and the Middle Eastern tribal society is one of the leading causes of militarism in Islam.

    Of course it is. There's even a Pentagon handbook outlining that the most important part of nation building is getting the angry young men off the streets. We are biologically programmed to have a period of extreme activity and aggression during certain years of the males of the species. Channeling these energies from the intended purpose of mating into something else is very easy and has been one of the first tricks of social engineering discovered. Why do you think we recruit soldiers in their late teens? Physical performance is not the reason, it peaks a couple years later.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  50. Re:Slashdot Posters Want Pakistani Lawyer Executed by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are confusing "Islam" with "hardline Islam forged from unreasonable external pressures fucking with it for over a century, causing the people to latch on to anything they can to try to regain some sense of independence and power". Don't think for a second that Islam has had the same luxuries as Christianity or even Judaism. Sure, both other religions have had tough times, and when they did, things got ugly. Also, you might want to look up what Wahhabism is, and how it differs from moderate Islam. Your ignorance is showing.

  51. Re:Slashdot Posters Want Pakistani Lawyer Executed by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can we PLEASE just stop the liberal "If a few are nice they must ALL be nice" bullshit, please? If 80% are fucking nuts I really don't give a shit if 20% are nice folks, because guess what? The nice folks TOLERATE the nuts! Did you see the huge mobs dancing in the streets celebrating 9/11? How many calls for "tolerance" and "moderation" have you seen from the big middle eastern clerics? Try little to none.

    Whether you like it or not, it WILL be Us VS Them, because they refuse to acknowledge the right of non believers to exist. They do NOT allow freedom of religion, speech, or frankly any other right than the right to bow down and obey. PERIOD.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  52. And by mahadiga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.

    --
    I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga