Facebook Postings Lead To Arrest for Heresy In the West Bank

forand writes "Using screen shots of a customer's Facebook profile, owners of a West Bank internet cafe helped Palestinian intelligence forces capture a man accused of heresy." According to sources quoted in the story, residents of both Gaza and the West Bank face ongoing scrutiny of their online activities; in Gaza, "Internet cafe owners are forced to monitor customers' online activity and alert intelligence officials if they see anything critical of the militant group or that violates Hamas' stern interpretation of Islam."

Comments

Not like cowardly Westerners

[CaptainMongles]

Some people aren't afraid to defend their culture and way of life.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.. if western cultures defended freedom with the same vigilance (not the same methods) as hamas, hamas wouldn't exist..

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[KingAlanI]

Yeah, playing (relatively) clean against people who are willing to play hardball does not help us.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[metrix007]

Well...hamas would exist but be known as hamas

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Ethanol-fueled]

if western cultures defended freedom with the same vigilance (not the same methods)

In our Western culture, vigilance is synonymous with those methods.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what you mean.. I just meant that we need more testicular fortitude when dealing with wannabe tyrants like hamas...whether they live inside or outside our borders is immaterial. I'm a fan of individual liberty.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Mindcontrolled]

It helps us in the long run. Sure, in the short run, supplanting a monster with a bigger, more atrocious one helps. But where does that get us?

If there is anything to the claim that we represent the "free world", we have to play relatively clean, lest it becomes nothing but shallow rhetoric.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Smiths]

well if you're a stateless refugee than you have no individual liberty...if objectively looked at who Hamas are and what they are fighting for, you'd see they have everything in common with people who want freedom.

try doing it sometime. Imagine you come from another planet, look at the worlds conflicts from an outsiders perspective...you'll see things arent as clean cut as what the TV tells you.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[mcvos]

Western ways of dealing with groups like Hamas have their own tyrannical tendencies. Maybe it's wiser to figure out non-tyrannical ways of dealing with our local wannabe-tyrants before we try to export our tyranny.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[jpmorgan]

From the article:

The media in the Palestinian Authority, as in the Arab world in general, are largely government-controlled, driving dissenting voices to the relative freedom of the Internet. The blogger's arrest showed a willingness on the part of the Palestinian government to clamp down on freedom of speech on the Web as well. He now faces a potential life prison sentence on heresy charges for "insulting the divine essence."

Many in this conservative Muslim town say that isn't enough, and suggested he should be killed for renouncing Islam. Even family members say he should remain behind bars for life.

"He should be burned to death," said Abdul-Latif Dahoud, a 35-year-old Qalqiliya resident. The execution should take place in public "to be an example to others," he added.

Few have come forward to defend him. One was Zainab Rashid, a liberal Palestinian commentator, who wrote in an online opinion piece that Husayin had made the important point that "criticizing religious texts for their (intellectual) weakness can only be combatted by ... oppression, prison and execution." ...

Gaza's Hamas rulers also stalk Facebook pages for suspected dissenters, said Palestinian rights activist Mustafa Ibrahim. He said Internet cafe owners are forced to monitor customers' online activity and alert intelligence officials if they see anything critical of the militant group or that violates Hamas' stern interpretation of Islam.

Freedom. I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[SuricouRaven]

In this case, it means the freedom to be oppressive and violate the freedom of others, in accordance with their religion.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Dunbal]

War is won by the most violent -- Clausewitz

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Dunbal]

"lest it becomes nothing but shallow rhetoric."

Too late.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Mindcontrolled]

Probably, yes. Doesn't mean we have to resort to pure defeatism. At least I like to think that we can salvage at least something of that claim.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

Freedom. I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Or you. Try living in a country that is actively oppressed, where the supply of practically everything is subject to the whims of some outside force, which invades every now and then with military vehicles and just might shoot your friends, bulldoze your house, or yourself. Freedom gets a much more simple and immediate meaning there than "freedom of speech on the web". That's how the human mind works - you need to have your base desires satisfied before you start thinking about more abstract things.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Smiths]

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously if you think that Hamas is thing restricting freedom from the Palestenians.

Besides a 60 year occupation...2 million people in Gaza have been living in virtual open air prison for the past 4 years. Israel controls every product that enters gaza to the extent that they recieve just enough food not to starve, but too much so they reproduce.

The fact that we're reading an article about Hamas restricting freedom and not this, if you know the area, is absurd.

Here is article about kindly Israeli/Harvard professor calling for the restriction of pre-natel subsidizes (food) to prevent Palestenians from breeding too much.

If this was any other country doing this, we'd all be up in arms, but because its us and they're muslims...its eh...whatever

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/harvard-prof-urges-popula_b_472191.html

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the state of Israel is hated by most normal people around the globe, and it has nothing to do with them having big noses and curly hair.

As to why such a country gets protection from all those Western countries which normally would sell their mother for a few votes, the answer can only be fat bankers with big noses and curly hair.

Israeli people already committed genocide on the people living in Palestine, it is written on their holy books. Apparently God told them to. Guess what He says to the Hamas' guys.

To me, He says nothing, but then I am not batshit crazy enough to believe in invisible uber-monsters that ask for human blood.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[TheLink]

That "country" is oppressed because that "country" is at war with Israel and these sort of people given more freedoms would be wiping the Israelis out with even greater enthusiasm than wiping out their own heretics.

If you think they're just going change and be so nice to Jews, Christians and pagans you should take a really close look at the history of Islam.

If they don't change their popular core beliefs you will always have problems with them:
http://www.tawfikhamid.com/abcs-test-for-radical-islam/

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[torako]

It's the Palestinian authorities that are acting like lunatics here. The very fact that they have much much bigger troubles like helping their citizens survive under all the pressure means that they shouldn't waste their time prosecuting people for being critical of Islam. It seems like they have their priorities mixed up and that makes it a question of freedom.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

Freedom gets a much more simple and immediate meaning there than "freedom of speech on the web".

There is nothing "abstract" about government goons showing up on your doorstep in order to haul you away for your execution because of your religious beliefs. Any government that does this is not legitimate and does not deserve anybody's support.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security, and they have to prove to the rest of the world that they can be considered a legitimate government. That's just the facts. They are failing on both accounts.

And you're right that this being an Islamic government is responsible for people in the West not supporting them, because nearly all Muslim governments are highly intolerant of other religions and intrinsically undemocratic. Why should I want to support governments that want to imprison or kill me for my religious beliefs? I will not put my support behind an Islamic government of any form because such governments have never worked. If they want my political support, these people need to start separating church and state. Frankly, I prefer an occupied Palestine to a Palestine governed by Islamic fundamentalists.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Teun]

It's quite interesting to see now those that are the strictest followers of such a Divine Essence at the same time believe He needs their feeble human intervention to recognise heresy and punish the perpetrator.

The God of these Vigilantes must be a weak God.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[cbiltcliffe]

Meh. I'm sure this is Israel's fault, somehow. After all, everybody knows that all the human rights abuses in Gaza are the result of military action by Israel. They must have put hamas up to it, and forced them to monitor this Internet cafe, and then forced them to arrest the guy.
They also forced his family to publicly say all those things about keeping him behind bars. :-/

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[PopeRatzo]

if western cultures defended freedom with the same vigilance (not the same methods) as hamas, hamas wouldn't exist..

And if the queen had balls, she'd be king.

If "western cultures" "defended" "freedom" with the same "vigilance" as Hamas, then they wouldn't be cultures worth defending.

It bugs me when people write shit because it sound noble, but don't think about what it means.

How do you "defend freedom" anyway? Is "by making sure a mosque can be built on private property in Lower Manhattan" anywhere on the list of "defending freedom"?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

And given the way your government works, I think the Israelis make a lot more sense right about now.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[PopeRatzo]

If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security

Think about what you're saying.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[TheRaven64]

If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security, and they have to prove to the rest of the world that they can be considered a legitimate government

That's exactly what we said about another country, a bit over 200 years ago.

-- The British Government

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

What's there to think about? I'm merely stating what Israel is saying, and Israel has the power to enforce that. Whether it ought to be that way is another question.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

Yes, but Britain obviously couldn't enforce it while Israel can. And one reason Britain failed was because Americans were fighting for liberty and not just independence, while the Palestinians apparently are not.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[schnablebg]

No, we're not up in arms because this is just some guy talking, not any government's policy.

The Gazans have a strange idea of freedom to me; when Israel gave them a chance to form their own government they decided to destroy their economy and shoot rockets at Israel.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Smiths]

You ignore the reality of whats happening while calling for them to be responsible to rule themselves to some standard that Israel...the occupier decides.

The Palesteinians are where they are because another people violently established a country in their land and have been continuing to expland it via. 500K Israelis live outside of Israels original border. Why? Because they are not interested. Because those 500K people are outside Israels border, 4 million Palestenians are controlled by rules and checkpoints by Israel...yet they have no vote in Israel, even though they are subject to Israeli law.

If Israel wants the land, then they can keep. Let them declare their borders...something they havent done...and make the Palestenians who fall within them citizens....but they dont do this cause they want Israel to be a 'Jewish" democractic state (haha) so they keep the land and oppress the people...thats not nice or legal

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Smiths]

"fighting for liberty"

I don't know how old you are, but seriously at some point you have to understand the difference between the image and the reality.

"fighting for liberty"

thats the image you're taught...the reality is slavery, no sufferage for women, genoicde of native americans.

Its important to reconize that as its all over history and current events...Image = Operation Iraqi freedom! Reality = see wikileaks

Image= Our great democratic ally and bastion of freedom in the Middle East..Reality=Israel who has the most UN resolutions against it in the world...and who is ethnically cleansing the native people of the area.

Seriously, turn off the TV for a few weeks and thing about the world using your own mind instead of just repeating slogans like 'Americans were fighting for liberty ..."

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[xaositects]

I'm surprised no one else pointed this out yet

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[burris]

Gaza is oppressed because Israel has been trying unsuccessfully for over 40 years to annex as much of it as possible with as few non-Jews as possible. Since the people of Gaza have steadfastly refused and made it impossible for Israel to achieve her goals, Israel is now deliberately starving the population.

Hamas was only created after about 20 years of such oppression.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[muntis]

It does not work that way. For each force there is counter force. The more Israel will push Palestinians the more radical they will become. Look at Germany and Russia after WW1, look at Korea. Keeping 2M people imprisoned like that is on thin line to become a genocide.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[burris]

Hamas exists because people got fed up with 40 years of Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing. That was over 20 years ago.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Culture20]

Internet cafe owners are forced to monitor customers' online activity and alert intelligence officials if they see anything critical of the militant group or that violates Hamas' stern interpretation of Islam.

And now they have Firesheep to make it easier.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[cmdr_tofu]

s/in accordance with their religion//

I agree that this a violation of freedom, but this is a case of religion being subverted for political reasons, not a problem with the religion. Almost every religious group has had its fanatics at one time or another.

Admittedly I don't know a large fraction of the worlds Muslim population (something like 18.5%) but the Muslim folks that I know don't interpret their religion that way.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[modecx]

In any case, it would share many of the qualities of hummus; most notably, texture.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Alex Belits]

And this is different from The American Way, exactly how?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Culture20]

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously if you think that Hamas is thing restricting freedom from the Palestenians.

I'm afraid I can't take you seriously if you think that it's a binary issue. Because the Israelis are doing bad things, Hamas must be pure and good?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[couchslug]

"How do you "defend freedom" anyway?"

By weakening religion, all of which oppose "freedom" and consist of frameworks for imposing restrictions.

"Freedoms" CONFLICT with each other, so choice is required.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[KevinIsOwn]

It must be nice having an ideology that is so clear cut. Blaming Israel for everything certainly seems like an easy way of rationalizing what happens in Gaza/the West Bank. But you are the one, after all, who suggested we pretend that we "come from another planet" earlier in this thread, and yet you blame Israel even for actions that are very obviously the choices of Hamas. Israel has nothing to do with Hamas's oppression of their own people.

You can criticize Israel for its blockade, for its demolition of houses, for its wall, and for a whole host of other abuses it has indeed committed, and should be ashamed of. But when it comes to Hamas oppressing people for trying to speak out freely and practice (or not practice) Islam in the way they wish, Israel has absolutely no say in this, and their occupation is entirely tangential to the issue at hand in this article.

Smiths, you are the one who needs to step back and realize that you have become entrenched by an ideology.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Hognoxious]

Is "by making sure a mosque can be built on private property in Lower Manhattan" anywhere on the list of "defending freedom"?

Only if it's designed by the same architect who did Mecca Cathedral or Tehran Abbey.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[dgatwood]

In this case, it means the freedom to be oppressive and violate the freedom of others, in accordance with their religion.

You've fallen into the same classic trap as a lot of conservative thinkers. Tyranny and freedom are opposites. Tyranny of the majority is tyranny. Therefore, they are not free in any meaningful sense of the word.

More importantly, such tyranny is unsustainable. In a few hundred years, when the Catholic, Jewish, or Buddhist minority population explodes (and this is a likely scenario---minorities tend to have lower income, and people with lower income often produce more offspring), at some magic point, the Muslims will be in the minority. You can safely assume that at this point, the oppressed will turn on their oppressors and pass laws that oppress them in turn. Eventually, equilibrium will be achieved, but can the human race really be expected to have the patience to wait that long while people commit heinous acts of murder in the name of God?

See, here's the thing. As far as I'm concerned, if you're killing someone for God, you're not reading your scripture correctly. Those rules were not written by God. They were written by man in a time that rightfully should be left in the past. Ask yourself this: if Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, how can they ignore his teachings so willingly? The good Samaritan, for example, preaches religious tolerance; the man Jesus chose to uphold as an example of how to live was of a people that his apostles would despise, in part due to religious differences, and who would have despised the man he helped because of similar differences.

There are many, many more examples of this---so much so that anyone who requires death over differing religious beliefs has blinders on, focusing on a tiny section of their religious text to the exclusion of the majority of it. In short, those who would kill in God's name, by doing so, blaspheme it, and should, by their same standards, be put to death. There's some irony for you.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, the next time your neighbor decides to send his kid into their country strapped with high explosives, maybe you and the rest of your neighborhood should do something about it.

You keep jabbing the bees nest, then crying when you get stung. People have just stopped caring.

It really is as simple as that.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[SuricouRaven]

I named religion specifically because 'freedom of religion' is one of those princibles that western cultures tend to respect. It's even in the US bill of rights.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[SuricouRaven]

"As far as I'm concerned, if you're killing someone for God, you're not reading your scripture correctly." So what gives you the right or authority to tell them how to read their scripture? :>

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[hjf]

If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel

FUCK YOU. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.

SERIOUSLY DUDE, FUCK YOU!

Hint 1: WHO THE FUCK IS ISRAEL?
Hint 2: Look up the dictionary for SOVEREIGNITY
Hint 3: FUCK YOU.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[dgatwood]

Exactly the same right and authority that they have to tell me how to read mine, and more to the point, the exact same right and authority that they have to kill people who do not subscribe to their belief system. None, in other words.

I am merely expressing an opinion. They can have different opinions. It's when those opinions become manifest in real-world actions that they become good or evil, and killing those who merely express differences of opinion falls pretty clearly on the evil side of the line in any civilized society. Indeed, this is by definition what differentiates civilization from barbarianism.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[chrb]

In this case, it means the freedom to be oppressive and violate the freedom of others, in accordance with their religion.

Blasphemy as a crime is common in most religious societies. John William Gott was the last person in Britain to be imprisoned for heresy, in 1921. The last person to be executed for heresy in Britain was Thomas Aikenhead in 1697. Both had been critical of Christianity. The fact that Hamas are only going to imprison this man, rather than execute him, suggests that their law is only 90 years behind that of Britain.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[greg_barton]

I agree.. if western cultures defended freedom with the same vigilance (not the same methods) as hamas, hamas wouldn't exist..

And, consequently, freedom wouldn't exist. Hypervigilance, no matter what the methods, destroys freedom.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[greg_barton]

War is won by the most violent -- Clausewitz

Nah. This is simplistic thinking. For instance, take uber violent warrior A, and clever warrior B. If B tricks A into an uberviolent attack on the wrong target, making A expend his resources, B can win with relatively little violence. So war can easily be lost bu the most violent, especially if they're stupid or out of control.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[chrb]

If they want my political support, these people need to start separating church and state.

The separation of Church and state in the United States was a wonderful idea of the Founding Fathers, but it is not something that is common throughout the Western world. England has the Church of England, Finland has the Church of Finland, etc, and when it comes to the separation of politics and religion, there are many Christian political parties that wield power in government.

Given that we have not yet achieved a complete separation of Church and state in the West, I think it is somewhat unrealistic to think that Muslim countries are going to be so forward thinking.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Smiths]

No Hamas is not pure and good..but this story IMO is not the most important thing Americans should be aware of RE I/P.

In the US you will read endless stories about how bad hamas is, how crazy those muslims, but Americans will get very little of the reality of what I/P is about, a reality that the rest of world is well aware of.

  I was in the WTC for both attacks. Afterwards I investigated why we were attacked. The terrorists said we were attacked because of support for Israel. The govt and media said we were attacked because they hate our freedom. That is a lie.

Our policy towards I/P hasent changed a lick since 9/11. Now after we kill all the "terrorists"...were up to what now? 150K? Eventually we will have to face reality and Americans will have to learn about I/P...this story frankly is, even if true, even if terrible a waste of peoples time considering what is going on over there.

We get upset over someone being arrested for blasphamy but the 60 year occupation, aparthied, that gets ignored by most Americans. Something is wrong here.

mondoweiss.net

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[canadian_right]

There are cultures that do not deserve to be defended, but should be condemned for their frequent abuse of human rights, and thuggish, criminal behavior.

And just because we are not as bad as some countries, doesn't mean we get to be smug and righteous - lots of room for improvement here too.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[canadian_right]

And this vigilance should start home with the laws our own governments pass, the policies they have in international trade, and starting preemptive wars.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[canadian_right]

But they don't have freedom of religion. They have one, oppressive version of a religion imposed on everyone.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[canadian_right]

Maybe the Palestinians should stop suicide bombing, lobbing rockets, kidnapping and general mayhem. Kind of hard to make peace with someone who is sworn to destroy you, and teaches hatred of Jews" to all its children. I don't agree with all the actions the Israelis take to defend themselves, but the Palestinians have avoided peace more than once (Camp David, etc...). The Israelis should stop building "settlements" in disputed lands.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

Smiths, you are the one who needs to step back and realize that you have become entrenched by an ideology.

You've stated that so much more nicely than I would be able to Herr Kevin.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[canadian_right]

Modern warfare is won by the side with the largest industrial output, logistics, and technology that doesn't completely screw up on the battle field.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Veggiesama]

I agree that this a violation of freedom, but this is a case of religion being subverted for political reasons, not a problem with the religion. Almost every religious group has had its fanatics at one time or another.

Religion is a political subversion.

The Quran, in isolation, is not a religion. Same goes for the Sunnah, or the Bible, or other "primary sources." Human language is not a programming language, where one word corresponds to one action. No text of sufficient complexity can be understood in a uniform, objective, everyone-sees-the-same-thing way. Same goes double if the text is ancient, translated, or literary.

Instead, there are many interpreters--scholars, imams, clerics--who stand in the way and impose their own views, knowingly or unknowingly, on the original texts. Their own views create a new version of the text in their minds and the minds of those who listen to or read them. Simply by citing a certain passage and omitting a less compelling passage, they are creating a new narrative with its own strengths and foibles. Each narrative is built upon previous narratives (it is difficult to read one of these holy books in isolation without somehow being exposed to other believers, teachers, footnotes/annotations, or the media). Despite the differences (minute or extreme) between narratives, each narrative shares a lot in common with one another.

As opposed to an individual's narrative, the religion can be found in the complex web of relationships between books, theories, and people. Just like no one computer comprises the Internet, the entire network of relationships makes up the religion (and the Internet). And that complex web--the religion--is also a web of political relationships. Those politics are replete with broken promises, exaggerated fears, and insipid bullying--human problems from human politics. It's impossible to exonerate one's own narrative from the sticky web of human politics. You can't stand on the sidelines, because you're in it, no matter how badly you distance yourself from the ugly politics of it all.

Those fanatics you mention can't be so easily dismissed when they live in your web. Humanist Christians and liberal Muslims, take note: you need to own up to and speak out against your most destructive members. Especially when those members rule countries, lead political parties, and fund extreme acts of violence.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[dryeo]

Liberties like being able to steal land (Americans were very pissed off at King George for wanting to treat the natives the same as everyone else), not have Roman Catholics in the government (Americans were very pissed off after Quebec joined the British Empire and the oath to the King was changed to allow Catholics in the government) and the liberty to undemocratically force the majority to go along with them.
You guys were just lucky that between independence and the writing of the constitution that a bunch of liberals were in power. There was a large push for your own King.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[MysteriousPreacher]

Nah, this subversion thing is junk. There's no-one reference version of any given religion - just a lot of interpretations. It's the benefit of having contradictory and rambling books of ancient wisdom. It's not so much about every religion having a discrete group of fanatics - more each religion having varying levels of crazy.

Granted religions can be used to pursue more earthly goals, but it's difficult to cleanly discern that. Could be headed for no true Scotsman territory.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[jklovanc]

How about this one:
Image= The downtrodden Palestinians being occupied by the genocidal Israelis. Reality: Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of an internationally recognized state while hiding behind the suffereing of their people who's leadership lives free in Syria.

Hamas is a the child of a war declared by The Arab States to eliminate the State of Israel (The State being created by the UN). They lost the war but still will not recognize Israel's right to exist. Their main goal is still to eliminate Israel. Check the Hamas Covenant articles 12 and 13. By article 13 they will not even negotiate a peace treaty.

I am not in complete agreement with everything Israel has done but what do you expect Israel to do when they are continually subjected to rocket attacks and suicide bombers? The Palestinians started it and the will not quit.

Btw, Fatah is at least trying to be reasonable.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Dunbal]

Please justify your position as far as guerrilla warfare is concerned. I rest my case.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Naturalis Philosopho]

Well, there's the bitch of it. Based on our own western rules Hamas is a legitimate government because they were elected democratically. Now, that's not to say that I agree with them or their methods, but it certainly reveals a flaw in our own rhetoric. It's a dirty and nasty thing, but sometimes democracy is not compatible with our other stated goals of human rights and security. Democracy gives people what the (sometimes slim) majority (of voters) wants; it does not give people neccesarily what they need, or what makes them good neighbors (or even human beings).

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[jesset77]

If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security against the newly formed Palestinian government and it's citizenry.

I'm not GP, but clarified his statement a bit. Palestine can't keep Isreal from getting invaded by, let's say, France.. but show me where Israel is morally obligated to help form a government that can't keep it's people from attacking Israel.

And you, Smiths:

Here is article about kindly Israeli/Harvard professor calling for the restriction of pre-natel subsidizes (food) to prevent Palestenians from breeding too much.

Alright then, citation needed that any policies similar to this are actually being carried out. Your linked article doesn't say this is happening, just that an outrageous professor thinks it's worth trying. Fail troll is.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Rexdude]

All of the Abrahamic religions are inward looking, and their holy books contain passages advocating the killing of infidels or unbelievers among others. The same books also self contradictorily contain other passages talking about peace and brotherhood. This leaves everything to selective interpretation.

Till the 15th century, both Christianity and Islam tended to follow their violent teachings. The difference being the Western world had the Renaissance, and was able to initiate some sort of religious reform. Islam has had no such movement, the majority of Muslim rulers oppressed their non Muslim subjects or converted them on pain of death(in selective accordance with their holy book). Today, majority of Christians choose to ignore teachings such as these, and instead focus on the more humanitarian aspects of the New Testament.

The lunatic fringe in Islam - be it rabid clerics or terror groups - have the loudest voices, and continue to preach hatred towards non Muslims and plot attacks against them. The so called voice of moderate Islam remained silent when Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a film criticizing Islam's treatment of women, yet complained loudly about a bunch of cartoons in a Danish newspaper.

Today, if a cult were to spring up that tried to enforce strict adherence to the Old Testament, with all its colorful punishments, it would be shunned as barbaric, but at no point could you deny that they were following the teachings of the Bible. Just that they chose to follow the most warped and perverted teachings among them.

The same is true about those who kill in the name of Islam. They are NOT misguided, but merely obeying their faith selectively (how one can follow contradicting instructions in the Koran/Bible is beyond me). So called 'moderate' Islam cannot be allowed to exist under the tenets of Islam, it's an all or nothing club that you can check out of but never leave (under penalty of death for apostasy).

So, to all self professed liberal and moderate Muslims - you may disagree with the mad mullahs and terrorists who share the religion with you, but they're the ones more faithful to it than you, warped as it may sound. Your own tolerance and respect for other beliefs is part of a value system that you have made for yourself (perhaps by obeying the peaceful chapters of the Koran), it is not to Islam's overall credit. Islam has nothing in it that recognizes the right of any other religious belief to exist.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[sourcerror]

Isn't it intresting that Hamas was supported by Israel as long Fatah was the stronger party?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

Well, there's the bitch of it. Based on our own western rules Hamas is a legitimate government because they were elected democratically.

Merely receiving a majority of the votes does not make a government legitimate by our rules; it also has to respect basic human rights.

Democracy gives people what the (sometimes slim) majority (of voters) wants

Tyranny of the majority is not democracy.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

Is that the kind of bullshit and propaganda they still teach in British schools? You really are just demonstrating your ignorance.

In any case, what you wrote is totally irrelevant. It is simply a fact that Palestinians need to comply with the conditions that Israel and the West sets for them, while it is a fact that Americans were strong enough not to give a f*ck about what the British thought (or think, for that matter).

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

I didn't ask for a "complete" separation of church and state, I said they should start separating them. Having severe penalties (death, imprisonment) for blasphemy, apostacy, or atheism is not acceptable, and it effectively doesn't exist in Western nations anymore. And for all their ideological and moral faults, Christian parties in the West tend to be opposed to the death penalty, violence, and war.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

I just stated an obvious fact: Israel is not going to accept anything less, and Israel has the power to impose this condition.

I think what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is morally wrong and politically not justifiable. But frankly, responses like yours, and actions like that reported in the article make me care less and less.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

All true, but how is any of that relevant? I don't want my government to support regimes that imprison or kill people for their religious beliefs. And I don't buy that religious intolerance of the Palestinian government is a consequence of Israel's occupation, because the same religious intolerance exists in almost the entire Muslim world. If people want us to give our help and political support (beyond basic humanitarian aid), they need to play by our rules.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Smiths]

Man, I have to re-read this shat before I post it and check for grammatical errors....

oh well....I hear what you're saying, and I'm sure you're partly right. I may be a few degrees too idealistic. That happens when you know whats going on over there and you realize how little of that truth is being spoken about in America. But even if I go to far what I'm saying closer to the truth than the crap was first posted about this story.

Those comments were similar to what I see about Iraq. After we bomb their cities, destroy their goverment and society...then when theres anarchy and bombings...Americans read about it and say 'oh my they are so violent! It must be because of their religion!'

Same as with the reaction to Hamas in this story.

To ignore the political things and lay it all at the feat of their culture and religion is a delusion.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[PopeRatzo]

"How do you "defend freedom" anyway?"

By weakening religion, all of which oppose "freedom" and consist of frameworks for imposing restrictions.

"Freedoms" CONFLICT with each other, so choice is required.

Brother, you just said a mouthful. If I had a nickel for every time I heard some radio loudmouth talking about how we are "defending our freedom" by using a Predator drone to incinerate 20 people on the other side of the world in order to (maybe) get one guy who might be involved with another guy who wants to blow up some oil company contractor for turning his country into a toxic dump, I'd have enough nickels to pay for one of those drones.

Especially with "Veterans' Day" last week, we were constantly hearing about how every GI stationed in Germany is a hero and the best and brightest and how we need to thank then for "defending our freedom".

Fact is, there's only a small percentage of the people in our armed services who joined with some great noble vision in mind. Most of them were just making a decision that seemed like a good idea at the time. When we started sending our state National Guard troops over to Iraq, and hiring "contractors" at inflated wages to do jobs that GIs used to do, I realized the whole thing was a scam to keep the money flowing back and forth from (usually GOP) congressmen and military contractors, including the largest one, Haliburton, that's not even a U.S. company.

We tell this pretty fairy tale about "defending our freedom" because it keeps young men and women from having to deal psychologically with what they're actually doing. When an actual "threat to our freedom" arises, you'll know it because Republicans will start talking about how we should just worry about our own country and let the rest of the world work out their own problems, like they did in 1939. As long as they're the ones cheerleading these military actions, you can be pretty sure they're just a dodge.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

I don't know how old you are, but seriously at some point you have to understand the difference between the image and the reality.

Yeah, so should you, instead of regurgitating European historical excuses.

the reality is slavery, no sufferage for women, genoicde of native americans.

The reality is that many of those were crimes committed by Europeans and that the US worked hard to fix them as quickly as politically possible, usually far ahead of other nations.

Its important to reconize that as its all over history and current events...Image = Operation Iraqi freedom! Reality = see wikileaks

The deaths reported by Wikileaks are mostly civilian-on-civilian violence; they are not the responsibility of the US. Even if you attribute those deaths to the US invasion, they represent a big reduction over the mass murder that Saddam Hussein perpetrated on his people over the decade before, so Iraqis are still better off.

Image= Our great democratic ally and bastion of freedom in the Middle East..Reality=Israel who has the most UN resolutions against it in the world...and who is ethnically cleansing the native people of the area.

The US supports Israel for economic reasons, domestic political reasons, and strategic reasons. The fact that Israel tends not to chop off people's heads for speaking their mind is a nice bonus, but clearly not a criterion for who the US picks as friends (viz Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). The only question as far as US voters are concerned is whether we're getting our money's worth. I'm sorry you labored under the illusion that there was anything more to it.

Seriously, turn off the TV for a few weeks and thing about the world using your own mind instead of just repeating slogans like 'Americans were fighting for liberty ..."

Americans were fighting for their own liberty--nothing more--and they achieved that. That's the only liberty I was speaking about.

The liberty of other nations is not, and has never been, of primary concern to American voters or politicians; it is merely a means to an end, namely that of US liberty, security, and prosperity. Often, democratizing other nations is expedient (e.g., Germany), but sometimes it is not (e.g., Saudi Arabia). Sorry if you were confused about this point, but many American voters are not, which is why they keep voting for politicians that put America's interests first.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

You ignore the reality of whats happening while calling for them to be responsible to rule themselves to some standard that Israel...the occupier decides.

I'm not "calling them" to do anything, and I'm not saying it's right; I was simply stating the way it is.

thats not nice or legal

No, but why is that my business? I'm just saying that if the Palestinian government wants more support from me, telling me that they would chop off my head if they get their hands on me is not a good way to start.

And such violence and intolerance is not an automatic consequence of oppression; Palestinians could be following the path of Gandhi, not the path of resistance and violence.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

Those comments were similar to what I see about Iraq. After we bomb their cities, destroy their goverment and society...then when theres anarchy and bombings...Americans read about it and say 'oh my they are so violent! It must be because of their religion!'

Far fewer Iraqis have killed each other in the decade after the US invasion than in the decade before. Furthermore, there objectively is a high level of religiously and ethnically motivated violence in Iraq. So, don't blame America for a problem that really has its origins in the arbitrary borders that the British drew, plus the lack of a democratic tradition in the region. Bad as things seem, Iraq is probably still better off today than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[canadian_right]

And which guerrilla "army" actually threatens the USA? by threaten I mean has a realistic chance of doing more damage than car accidents.

More seriously, while the guerrilla's can certainly be annoying, and very difficult to stamp out if you are the invading army and they have the support of the locals, they are NOT going to win a war.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[arth1]

If Palestinians want to govern themselves, they have to prove to Israel that they can guarantee Israel's security, and they have to prove to the rest of the world that they can be considered a legitimate government. That's just the facts. They are failing on both accounts.

You know, if you switch the words "Israel" and "Palestinians" around, the sentence makes exactly as much sense. And by that measure, the Israeli government should obviously step down, because they have shown that they can't guarantee Palestine's security.

A primary reason why the situation is like it is, is because the US holds a veto in the UN security council, and will always use it to quench any demands on Israel, no questions asked. They have a de-facto carte blanche which Palestine doesn't have. Even out the playing field and then make similar demands of both elected governments.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[jackbird]

That's absurd. The Continental Congress never targeted British civilians in England for random killings to advanced their agenda, nor advocated a policy of ethnically cleansing England. Oh, and they didn't share a border. And England had no desire whatsoever to grant statehood to its colony, regardless how good the governance was. In fact, the parallels are extremely few.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[jackbird]

No, it exists because Arafat picked the wrong side to support in the first gulf war, and his funding from the Saudis to buy the population's loyalty through schools, hospitals, and social services dried up. Geopolitical rule of thumb #1: Follow the money.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

I make no demands at all; I just stated the facts as they are on the ground right now: Palestinians need to play by Israel's rules because Israel has the power.

But given that the Palestinian government apparently wants to kill people like me (atheists and people who disrespect Mohammed), why should I support that government? I disagree with what Israel is doing, but at least their government doesn't want to kill me. So why would I want to "even out the playing field"?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Swave An deBwoner]

Besides a 60 year occupation...2 million people in Gaza have been living in virtual open air prison for the past 4 years. Israel controls every product that enters gaza to the extent that they recieve just enough food not to starve, but too much so they reproduce.

Numbers of Palestinian refugees according to UNRWA:

Jordan: 1,983,733
Lebanon: 425,640
Syria: 472,109
West Bank: 778,993
Gaza Strip: 1,106,195

"UNRWA in figures"

How come some of these are Arab (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria)? How come they haven't permitted the Palestinian refugees within their borders to become integrated into their Arab national life? Is it possible that the "Palestinian Problem" is being maintained solely to further the Arab states' enmity with Israel?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Smiths]

"Iraq is probably still better off today than it was under Saddam Hussein."

groan. Have you read what the Iraqis say about us? Do you they think they're better off? No...honestly only an American could say this....and no the US has been responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Sadamm was ever accused of. Over 100K killed from our recent combat there...and during the previous 10 years due to our embargo its said that between 300K and 900K people died.

Can you fathom that? I can't. We've witnessed the trauma the US went through when 2500 people were killed here...imagine if more than > 500K of your fellow citizens were killed...lord knows what % that is....Imagine your cities bombed, your goverment deposed...decades of progress erased.

The world may keep truning, but for those who lived through this in Iraq...they will never be able to go back to their old lives nor move forward with the rest of the world..their lives are forfeit...an entire generation lost will be lost....

You really imagine the Iraqis saying...'oh yeah, we've lost everything, or homes, livelyhood, family...but thank g-d we have a new president.'

No, no, you have much to learn if you think you this was a war of liberation. They've been using that lie for 4K years and people still havent caught on. Its incredible really.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

Have you read what the Iraqis say about us? ... You really imagine the Iraqis saying...'

I don't need to imagine, I have talked to a number of them. Have you?

Over 100K killed from our recent combat there

That's completely wrong. The overwhelming deaths in the Iraq Body Count are civilian-on-civilian violence.

Can you fathom that? ... their lives are forfeit...an entire generation lost will be lost....

Yes, I can fathom that, because my parents and relatives lived through much worse in WWII, millions killed in their countries, their lives on hold for a decade, and almost everything destroyed. Their generation wasn't "lost" at all, they got educations, rolled up their sleeves, and had good, productive lives. And they certainly thought getting rid of the fascists was worth it.

No...honestly only an American could say this...

Honestly, you seem totally naive to me.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[dryeo]

Is that the kind of bullshit and propaganda they still teach in British schools? You really are just demonstrating your ignorance.

I have no idea what they teach in British schools. Myself, all I remember learning from the teachers about the American revolution was how many people had to leave their homes because they didn't agree.
Now life about that time taught me that Americans were the kind of people that took peoples freedoms away and that they didn't even recognize the most basic human rights if they weren't written in their constitution. I'm talking about the right to life, the right to do what ever you want with your body if you don't hurt anyone and even the right to belong to any political party.
One of the worst things I remember from childhood was the stories of the poor kids forced to have to undergo some schooling in the States revolving about the indoctrination they had to endure. It sounded a lot like the Soviet Union.
I'm sorry but it is really hard to pay attention to someone that was fed so much propaganda that they honestly believe the bullshit they were fed about being the best. You"re just another person.

In any case, what you wrote is totally irrelevant. It is simply a fact that Palestinians need to comply with the conditions that Israel and the West sets for them, while it is a fact that Americans were strong enough not to give a f*ck about what the British thought (or think, for that matter).

Actually it was that the British were preoccupied with some major wars and America just wasn't that important to waste the resources on. And of course Americas true colours were shown when they supported the French monarchy during the French revolution.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

Myself, all I remember learning from the teachers about the American revolution was how many people had to leave their homes because they didn't agree.

Nothing wrong with that: they chose not to become citizens and not to swear allegiance to the US. The same happens to you anywhere else.

I'm sorry but it is really hard to pay attention to someone that was fed so much propaganda that they honestly believe the bullshit they were fed about being the best.

I understand where you're coming from very well, since most of my schooling was outside the US as well. At some point, however, I started reading up on my own, whereas you just keep repeating the bullshit you were indoctrinated with.

Americas true colours were shown when they supported the French monarchy during the French revolution.

I have no doubt that the US was grateful to King Louis XVI's for his support, but I can't think of any substantial support. What are you thinking of?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[kdemetter]

The problem with religion is that it allows people to perform atrocities in the name of such religion , because religion cannot be questioned ( it's the word of the , so you must follow it without thinking about it ).

Religions are a means of imposing power . Always have been , always will be.

So the religion is not being 'subverted' . It's just serving it's intended purpose.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, it shows that their law is at least 90 years behind Britain, not *only* 90 years behind. The word only will be justified only when it is clear this is the last person so imprisoned for heresy. Until then, we can only say that it is at least 90 years behind (if we accept the rest of your logic) and have to wait to find out later what the final offset will be, whether it remains at 90 years, extends into the hundreds or even more. But I do hope you're right and this is the last one.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[RockDoctor]

They have one, oppressive version of a religion imposed on everyone.

No they don't ; they have multiple, mutually-contradictory and self-contradictory versions of religion, which most adherents try to impose on others regardless of those other's opinions on the matter, and back it up with violence up to and including the use of multiply, indiscriminately lethal force.

The "they" you refer to are obviously "people who follow any religion", as distinguished from "people who do not follow any religion". Once seen from that perspective, the murderously schismatic conflicts between (for example) the three forms of Abrahamic monotheism (the Judaisms, the Christianities, and the Islams) pass out of the realm of comedy and into farce. They're all a dangerous bunch of idiots, not worth further distinguishing.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[arth1]

"Apparently"? Forget your bias and look at the track record.

How many civilians have the Palestinians killed?
How many civilians have the Israelis killed?
Then, just to be extra sure, repeat the question, but subtract civilians of neighboring countries.

Judging by the numbers, I seem to run an infinitely higher risk of being killed my Mossad than Hamas.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[kdemetter]

Tyranny of the majority is not tyranny , it's democracy.

The reason is in the meaning of the word of 'majority' , which are a lot of people
A lot of people , with lots of different ideas , and who are each in a sense part of some minority.

The opposite of this is tyranny of the minority , which are a lot less people , and as such , much less likely to cover the ideas of the whole society.

Democracy is not perfect , but it's a lot better than tyranny of the minority.

Offcourse , you could also make decisions simply based on what's best solution for everyone . But society is not ready for that.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[hjf]

If you state it, you're agreeing with it.

I just wish the US entered a serious recession, one where they have to actually cut their spending on stupid things, like protecting Israel. Let's see how much Israel lasts doing Krav Maga only.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[TheLink]

Anything interesting you might wish to mention?

My points will still stand for Fatah. As far as I know, an English translation of Fatah's constitution is here: http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=1598&a=97061

Excerpts:
Article (8) The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism.
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

"Apparently"? Forget your bias and look at the track record.

The "track record" is spelled out in this news report: the Palestinian authority has the death penalty on atheism and blasphemy.

Judging by the numbers, I seem to run an infinitely higher risk of being killed my Mossad than Hamas.

And for me, it's different. I don't know of any reason the Mossad want to kill me. But obviously (read the article), the Palestinian authorities do have a policy of killing people like me. Why should I support any government that wants to kill me?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

If you state it, you're agreeing with it.

I couldn't care less about what conditions Israel imposes. But I think my own government should impose the condition that any Palestinian government respect freedom of speech and freedom of religion before we support a peace settlement involving them.

I just wish the US entered a serious recession, one where they have to actually cut their spending on stupid things, like protecting Israel. Let's see how much Israel lasts doing Krav Maga only.

I'm all for cutting US aid and arms sales to the ME, including Israel. But if you think that's going to weaken Israel significantly, you haven't looked at the military budgets. (Actually a lot of Israel's military, trade, and support comes from Europe.)

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[AK Marc]

The occupation started when they attacked Israel. Israel has repeatedly asked for a treaty or something else written explicitly stating that they will not invade/attack. The "opposition" (which changes depending on who you ask) refuses to sign anything that wouldn't let them indiscriminately kill Israelis.

They are at war. That is occupied territory in a war zone. That there is a long cease fire in place doesn't change the fact that it is a war and has been for 60 years. The 6-day war should be renamed the 6-decade war.

Once you accept it is an active war zone where the "losers" have been offered terms for a treaty many times and rejected all of them, usually (always?) without a counter offer at all other than absurd things like demanding that the winner of the war give an unconditional surrender, then it doesn't look like Israel is the unreasonable group. "Quit giving them help so that we can wipe the evil Jews off the face of the planet" is not a reasonable demand, nor something we should consider when trying to work towards peace. And your implication that funding people who just want to live without being killed by people sworn to kill them is a bad thing, I object. And it's not like we don't fund Saudi, Egyptian, or Jordanian interests as well.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

Ah, pretty typical: instead of answering my question--"Why should I support any government that wants to kill me?"-- you just make me your foe. No wonder that the case of Palestinians is so hopeless.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Dunbal]

"And which guerrilla "army" actually threatens the USA?"

      Completely off topic and irrelevant, we were making general statements, not specific statements about the US.

"they are NOT going to win a war. "

      Historically, guerrillas have won every war they have fought in (except Burma vs. the British in the 1950's) or at least resulted in a stalemate, like modern day Colombia (FARC controls vast regions of the Colombian interior), Iraq or Afghanistan. Not bad for small bands of dedicated people with no industrial base whatsoever. They win because they are brutal and merciless. The civilian population hides them and aids them because they know and fear the consequences. Eventually no one is left who wants to join the "regular" army. Or in the case of foreign invaders, they simply run out of money or political interest, pack up and go home.

You don't win wars by being nice. You don't win by playing fair. You win by being a bigger murderer than the other guy, by always putting him in a worse position tomorrow than he is today, until he capitulates completely. Unfortunately the "West" have this fantastic notion about "clean" warfare or "a gentleman's war". When you have both sides playing that game, you get World War I at best. However the other side doesn't have to play.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

Those people are living in that place before Israel became a state. How would you react if a crowd of gipsies with heavy weapons come and decide to create their country at your city and think your house is a good place for a parlament/senate?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Smiths]

Marc,

You have a lot to learn. In the late 1800s Palestine was a colony for Zionists Europeans. After WWI a rich Zionist (Baron Rothchild) had the British who controlled the area after the Ottoman empire collapsed to promise to make a state for the zionists in Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

For decades afterwards most intellegent people Ghandi, Einstein, Orwell, the US state department realize that unilaterally creating a state against the wishes the of the indigenous people was fool hardy. The early Zionists were persistent and carried out terrorists attacks against the British until they left...as it was after WWII and the Holocaust had created many Jewish Refugees the UN decided to partition the land giving 20% of the population 60% of the land. Truman, the US president recognized the new state against the advice of the state department. Before the neighboring Arab countries even could react the Zionists destroyed arab villages and drove the people out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_War

“We drove them out because of the Zionist ideology. Pure and simple. We came to inherit the land. Who do you inherit it from? If the land is empty, you don’t inherit it from anyone. The land wasn’t empty so we inherited it by driving them out"

After 1948 war came the 1956 war where Israel conspired with England and France to attack Egypt who had nationalized the Suez canal. Real Heoric. Ike and the Russians made them stop that. Soon after the Lavon affair happened...this was when Israel committed a series of terrorist attacks in Egypt and blamed them muslims...its true! haha.

Then came the 1967..guess who started that? Oh yeah it was a 'pre-emptive war' started by Israel. Right after the war they claimed all of Jerusalem as their capital, even though its against IL to keep territory won in war...but whatever...the Arabs did strike back..the one war they started in 1973...they lost..after that they offered full peace if Israel returned to 1967 borders...that offer has been made numerous times since...but its always refused by israel... preferring the lets negotiate for this pizza while I continue to keep eating it tactic. Now there are 500K Israelis living outside the pre 1967 border in settlements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

Due to Israels unprovoked wars on Lebanon and Gaza and more open move to the right wing, things are changing. Outside the US, reality is talked about...there are active boycotts, musicians refuse to perform there...Turkey once a close ally of the US is refusing some military cooperation due to the US bias for Israel. The world is changing..Israel will not forever be able to count on a US willing to go to war its enemies...eventually there will be one state there again, and all people will have equal rights. How can anyone be against that.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/oct/23/israel-the-alternative/

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Smiths]

"How come they haven't permitted the Palestinian refugees within their borders to become integrated into their Arab national life?"

Because international law calls for refugees to have right to return to their homes after a war. Why should the Palestinians give up this right? The Israelis want them to sacrifice that right because they want their 'democratic' country to have a Jewish majority. Good people should support the Palestinians to not give up their rights for something that is in fact not democratic, but racist.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Swave An deBwoner]

Because international law calls for refugees to have right to return to their homes after a war.

Maintaining a "Right of Return" does not require that the current host nations refuse to allow their Palestinian guests the rights of citizenship. Hell, for the most part they don't even allow them to work and earn a living. The Palestinian refugees are kept subjugated by their Arab hosts solely to fan the flames of anti-Israel sentiment among them and among the Arab populations.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

That is the old discussion about who started the violence and who should start with the stopping.

The social sciences have come a bit since the "an eye for an eye" days. Today we know how conflicts escalate, how self-sustaining patterns emerge, and - in part - how to resolve conflicts. One thing we know is that it is completely irrelevant who started and that the whole thing is a mesh of causality, not a singular cause-and-effect event. To every "if only you didn't, then..." the other side can always answer with a likewise "well, we only do that because you..."

Peace begins when both sides are so sick of the fighting that they find that having peace is more important to them than being right.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

Merely receiving a majority of the votes does not make a government legitimate by our rules; it also has to respect basic human rights.

Says who?

That's the thing. You can not at the same time claim that the majority is always right and that it has to follow rules. Who sanctioned those rules? It means you put an entity above the souvereignity of the people.

You can do that, don't get me wrong. In fact, I personally would strongly support it - democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. But you have to be straight on your philosophy. Either the people rule, then their vote, no matter how much you may dislike it, is "right". Or there is a framework given from outside/above and the votes only allow options within that framework, in which case the people are not souvereign.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

Typical mistake of personalisation.

The argument "waste their time" holds for an individual, or a small group. It doesn't hold for a government. It's a mistake often made, but a mistake nonetheless. You assume that the time and effort spent on this would otherwise be available for other tasks. If you look into the actual operative details, you will usually find out that it isn't. In this case, the religious police very likely would not make good tax collectors or even regular policemen.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

First, if "the people" vote to deprive some subset of "the people" of their ability to participate in the democracy, then, after the vote, "the people" aren't voting anymore and the democracy automatically ceases to be a democracy.

Second, democracies need ground rules by which they operate. They are agreed on ahead of time in a constitution, and need to be obeyed afterwards. If people vote to violate those ground rules, the form of government automatically becomes an anarchy and hence ceases to be a democracy.

Third, as a practical matter, democracies are subject to external forces. You can vote for a law to increase the grain harvest five-fold, but that won't feed you. You can vote to kill all the atheists or Jews, or to take over parts of Poland, but that doesn't mean other nations have to tolerate your choice.

So, "the people" can vote whatever they like, but certain votes are either logically inconsistent with democracy (i.e., after the vote, democracy ceases to exist), or they terminate your democracy due to external forces. "Right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with it, it's a question of logic.

As for the matter at hand, Palestinian blasphemy laws are inconsistent with democracy since they deprive non-Muslim citizens of their political rights. In addition, they are also inconsistent with international law and human rights.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

First, if "the people" vote to deprive some subset of "the people" of their ability to participate in the democracy, then, after the vote, "the people" aren't voting anymore and the democracy automatically ceases to be a democracy.

Think that through. It means that there has never been a democracy on this planet. There is not one nation where really everyone can vote. True, the subset increases over time, but it is always a subset. Right now, for example, we exclude people under a certain age (18 mostly) with pretty much the same sense of that being perfectly ok than our ancestors had for not allowing, say, women to vote.

Second, democracies need ground rules by which they operate. They are agreed on ahead of time in a constitution, and need to be obeyed afterwards. If people vote to violate those ground rules, the form of government automatically becomes an anarchy and hence ceases to be a democracy.

A constitution is not an eternal document set in stone. It can and should adapt to changing circumstances. The rules themselves are subject to change, including the rules on how to change the rules. Personally, I think nobody should be allowed into politics who hasn't played some Nomic.

And again, you are putting yourself above the people if you judge what their government is or "automatically becomes". That last part is especially nonsensical. "Democracy" and "Anarchy" are simply words. That's what we call it, but that's not what it is. The beauty is that different people can call the same thing by different things. So what you call Anarchy is someone else's Democracy. Who is to judge who of you two is right?

Third, as a practical matter, democracies are subject to external forces.

Absolutely. But we weren't discussing the vote to make pi equal 3.0 or any such nonsense. We agree entirely that reality and the laws of physics are not democractic.

So, "the people" can vote whatever they like, but certain votes are either logically inconsistent with democracy (i.e., after the vote, democracy ceases to exist), or they terminate your democracy due to external forces. "Right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with it, it's a question of logic.

Actually, much of politics is a question of semantics, not logic. "Democracy" is a label. You can change the label, if you like, but it doesn't change the thing. And vice versa. So the question is one of applicability. Since there is no singular, universal definition of "Democracy", you have a grey area where some would say the label still applies, while others say it doesn't. Which means that in real life, it is highly unlikely that a single vote would turn a democracy into something else. Heck, we even have historic examples. The Weimar Republic did not turn into the 3rd Reich over night. It was a quick change, but it still took several years and there is no singular point where everything changed, because all the steps are interconnected.

As for the matter at hand, Palestinian blasphemy laws are inconsistent with democracy since they deprive non-Muslim citizens of their political rights.

Where can I read a list of those "rights"? That's the point I'm making here. Either, the people are autonomous, in which case they define that list for themselves, or they are not, in which case you need a higher authority to point to. It seems to me:

In addition, they are also inconsistent with international law and human rights.

That your higher authority is this. Which is ok with me as long as you are clear that it means no people are really autonomous, because they are all subject to this higher authority (or explain why some are, and some aren't).

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[TheLink]

As long as I'm well compensated for my losses, I wouldn't care if they take over the entire country, so long as they actually do a much better job of running the country than the present government.

For example, if Singapore took over my country (Malaysia), I actually wouldn't mind. It's unlikely that they'd do worse than the current government.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

"Democracy" is a label. You can change the label, if you like, but it doesn't change the thing.

It's you who is changing the label.

Actually, much of politics is a question of semantics, not logic.

In politics, as in mathematics, you need logic to vet your definitions; definitions that are inconsistent with existing usage or are simply logically inconsistent need to be rejected. The definition you imagine for "democracy" is both.

Either, the people are autonomous, in which case they define that list for themselves, or they are not, in which case you need a higher authority to point to. It seems to me:

You're applying logic yourself, only that yours is broken. You don't need a "higher authority" to place limits on what people can vote on, there are intrinsic limits if you want a consistent and complete definition. Furthermore, your usage simply is inconsistent with actual usage of the term.

Think that through. It means that there has never been a democracy on this planet. There is not one nation where really everyone can vote. True, the subset increases over time, but it is always a subset.

You need to think that through, not me. You're not responding to what I said.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

It's you who is changing the label.

*surprised look*

Aren't you the one who is claiming that if certain things happen, something "automatically" becomes something else?

In politics, as in mathematics, you need logic to vet your definitions; definitions that are inconsistent with existing usage or are simply logically inconsistent need to be rejected. The definition you imagine for "democracy" is both.

That isn't logic, it is semantic. So we agree, except on terms. Logic does not rest on common understanding. The logic behind the excluded third, or mathematical results is not subject to context and interpretation. "1+1 = 2" is not a matter of culture. But our understanding of Democracy is. You can not define "Democracy" mathematically, with a precise formula. Its meaning changes over time and with context. For example, the Athenian Democracy only had voting rights for a small part of the population. We wouldn't even consider it a democracy today. And remind me, when did blacks get to vote in the USA? Was it non-democratic before that date, or was it merely that the meaning of democracy had changed over time, and the political system was a little behind?

You don't need a "higher authority" to place limits on what people can vote on, there are intrinsic limits if you want a consistent and complete definition.

Where do you take those "intrinsic limits" from, if not from a higher authority? Please tell.

You need to think that through, not me. You're not responding to what I said.

I think I aim. You claim that if we restrict who can vote, we are not living in a democracy. I am pointing out that we are restricting who can vote. Now make up your mind, because one of your two assumptions has to go: Either some restrictions are ok, or we are not currently living in a democracy. It's one or the other.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

You can not define "Democracy" mathematically, with a precise formula. Its meaning changes over time and with context.

Indeed, and that's exactly what you're trying to do. Many different, incompatible ways of people governing themselves can be democracies. What matters is that decisions are made by the people, but they don't necessarily need to be made by majority vote. All actual democracies, for example, are representative democracies, and they routinely make decisions opposed by the majority of the voters.

For example, the Athenian Democracy only had voting rights for a small part of the population. We wouldn't even consider it a democracy today. And remind me, when did blacks get to vote in the USA? Was it non-democratic before that date, or was it merely that the meaning of democracy had changed over time, and the political system was a little behind?

You misread what I was saying. I put "the people" in quotes because it refers to the group of persons that have a constitutionally defined right to vote. Changing who can vote is not a decision within the democracy, it is a constitutional decision. It usually requires considerably more than a majority of the people, and constitutional decisions are not guaranteed to be democratic.

Sometimes the legislature makes laws that deprive voters of their rights. Such decisions are in violation of the Constitution; as long as the legal and executive branches rectify such problems, our democracy endures. If they are allowed to stand in violation of the Constitution, we basically have anarchy.

(It's debatable whether voting rights for blacks and women were a change to our democracy or were already required by the original US Constitution, but the question is academic at this point.)

Either some restrictions are ok, or we are not currently living in a democracy. It's one or the other.

We live in a democracy and we have restrictions. Such restrictions derive from the ground rules --constitutions--that nations give themselves when they form. Such ground rules are needed for societies to function. There are many forms that those ground rules can take for a society to be democratic, but if you don't have any, you have an anarchy; not even voting is possible without ground rules for how to vote. Prior to having ground rules, such societies are anarchies, and once they start violating their constitutions on a grand scale, they are anarchies again.

Democracy can be both because your definition of democracy is wrong: you define democracy as "anything the people vote for goes" with no other considerations, but that's not what it is. It can't be because no society could function that way.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

Changing who can vote is not a decision within the democracy, it is a constitutional decision.

The difference being what, aside from words? This is the Nomic part - if you have a need for the rules to change, then you have to have rules that define how rules can be changed - including the rules on rulechanges. There is no magic barrier there between democractic and constitutional. Some rules can have a higher protection level, say requiring a 2/3 majority to change (and, of course, your rule to change rules needs to be in that set). But that is still a part of the system, not outside of it.

It is quite a gradual system, with few sudden changes.

Example: We have representative democracies. Imagine we extended the length of office. From 4 to 5 years. Then to 6. 10. 15. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. and then, just to be practical, life. Then we add inheritance. At which precise point are we leaving the democracy, or violating the constitution, or whatever you want to call it?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

So, you agree then a majority of the people cannot decide to kill a minority of the people in some democracies because the constitution won't let them, and you also realize that this restriction on the majority derives from the people themselves and not any external force.

That's my point: in a democracy, a majority does not always get to decide.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

So, you agree then a majority of the people cannot decide to kill a minority of the people in some democracies because the constitution won't let them, and you also realize that this restriction on the majority derives from the people themselves and not any external force.

That's my point: in a democracy, a majority does not always get to decide.

The two statements are not exclusive.

A 2/3rd majority may decide to institute minority protection, plus the need of a 2/3rd majority to change it. A later 2/3rd majority may decide to do away with the minority restriction, completely democratic and following the constitution that (in this case) says it needs a 2/3rd majority to change it.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

Well, you're changing your tune. A few messages back, you were saying:

Democracy gives people what the (sometimes slim) majority (of voters) wants

Also, your understanding of constitutional change is wrong:

A 2/3rd majority may decide to institute minority protection, plus the need of a 2/3rd majority to change it.

If we take the original US Constitution, it wasn't approved by a majority of the people, it was approved by representatives. Furthermore, amendments to the Constitution are also decided on by representatives and not majorities of the people.

Furthermore, constitutions often also recognize natural, inalienable, and/or self-evident rights that cannot ever be taken away by a vote. The judicial and executive branch would basically simply not enforce any laws that contradict such inalienable rights.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

Well, you're changing your tune. A few messages back, you were saying:

For the main decisions, that holds true. In fact, we can easily trace cases where a minority gets the majority say, due to the ways the voting systems work.

Furthermore, constitutions often also recognize natural, inalienable, and/or self-evident rights that cannot ever be taken away by a vote. The judicial and executive branch would basically simply not enforce any laws that contradict such inalienable rights.

In theory. In real life, it is possible to do away with those barriers. Do you think the Weimar Republic did not have seperation of powers or a constitution? And yet it could be turned into the 3rd Reich. There was no coup or overthrow of the government.

And again, if the people in those branches are elected, then what is stopping a majority from electing people who will let it happen, constitutional or not? And then passing a law retroactively declaring their actions as legal? Not as if that had ever happened...

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

For the main decisions, that holds true.

No, that doesn't hold "for the main decisions"; "the main decisions" in democracies tend to be made by elected representatives.

In real life, it is possible to do away with those barriers. Do you think the Weimar Republic did not have seperation of powers or a constitution?

And that's my point: contrary to your claims, the West doesn't have to respect any majority decision. The West didn't have to respect the democratic decision of Germans to hand over power to a genocidal maniac, and neither does it have to respect majority decisions in Muslim nations supporting religious intolerance. The contradiction you postulated doesn't exist.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

No, that doesn't hold "for the main decisions"; "the main decisions" in democracies tend to be made by elected representatives.

Who are elected according to majority rules and are themselves voting by majority rules.

And that's my point: contrary to your claims, the West doesn't have to respect any majority decision.

Which is not contrary to my claim at all. You are continuously evading my question to point out your higher authority. Because, frankly, there is none. You yourself (plural "you") declares itself as a higher authority whenever you think something can't be right. It's like the christians who pick and choose from their bible, quoting one nice and wise sentence as divine inspiration and ignoring another sentence on the same page that talks about murdering homosexuals or whatever.
Here's how it works: Germany 192x votes on laws A, B and C and the american press is all happy. Then it votes on laws D, E and F with the same rules, and the american press calls it evil, unconstitutional, undemocratic, whatever. Not to single out the US, the same works the other way around, too. Most of Europe thinks your war on Iraq is in breach of international law, american law and pretty much everything else, while we applaud Obamas election.

The point is that humans have this tendency to judge. And extreme psychological difficulties accepting someone elses decisions as equally valid. If you need evidence, one word: Gossip. You know, that process where the same people who trust the CEO to lead the company discuss and usually diss his every decision in the pantry?
I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. But we humans have a tendency to feel superior, to think the world revolves around us. We live in an first-person-perspective world, and it shows. But let's call it for what it is, instead of this tiresome appeal to invented higher authorities. Be it gods or moral standards, that's all stuff we make up to justify our judging of others.

I'm not dissing that. I do it myself all the time. But I find it dishonest to claim that there is anything else at work here than personal judgement.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

I think at this point you just keep modifying your definition of "democracy" to suit whatever argument you are making at the time. Clearly define what you mean by democracy, then we can continue this discussion.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

How about we go back to the original point:

Merely receiving a majority of the votes does not make a government legitimate by our rules; it also has to respect basic human rights.

The part I question is "our rules". Who are you to make the rules as to which foreign government is legitmate and which one isn't?

and my initial reply

That's the thing. You can not at the same time claim that the majority is always right and that it has to follow rules. Who sanctioned those rules? It means you put an entity above the souvereignity of the people.

This is the dilemma you still haven't solved. If the majority vote is not what determines right or wrong, then what is ?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

I'm not dissing that. I do it myself all the time. But I find it dishonest to claim that there is anything else at work here than personal judgement.

Well, you'd think that because evidently you lack a definition of democracy and are unwilling to use the definition that political science and philosophy actually uses.

Fact is that there are accepted requirements for a democracy; decision by majority vote isn't one of them, but protection of basic human rights and free and fair elections are a couple of them (among others).

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

The part I question is "our rules". Who are you to make the rules as to which foreign government is legitmate and which one isn't?

I'm not making any rules, I'm saying your logic is flawed: our rules do not require us to do this. Who are you to impose such a requirement?

This is the dilemma you still haven't solved. If the majority vote is not what determines right or wrong, then what is ?

Right and wrong, I can't answer. But for something to be a democratic decision, it has to be reached under democratic principles and conditions: free and fair elections, free political speech, and a guarantee of basic human rights, among other things. Majority vote is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

Right and wrong, I can't answer. But for something to be a democratic decision, it has to be reached under democratic principles and conditions: free and fair elections, free political speech, and a guarantee of basic human rights, among other things. Majority vote is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

I'll accept that point. We can use that definition as well as any other.

My question and your dilemma remains: Those rules have been defined by someone. Defining rules for someone else means that you put yourself above them. By what authority?

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

My question and your dilemma remains: Those rules have been defined by someone. Defining rules for someone else means that you put yourself above them. By what authority?

It's not "rules" it's definitions. The fact that I define something one way doesn't mean I put myself above anybody or that I have authority. The definition I use for democracy happens to be fairly widely used. Islamic scholars and military dictators have different ideas, but, frankly, I don't care any neither does anybody else who matters to me.

Second, what you call it doesn't matter anyway. The US has a strong military, and it's going to use that to protect its citizens, its allies, and people it considers innocent and threatened, in that order of priority. The US does not have any qualms eliminating a foreign government that threatens it even if that government was democratically elected. The "authority" for that derives from the US military. You may not like that, but tough shit.

FWIW, such US foreign actions are consistent with domestic actions: the US federal government intervenes when local and state decisions are inconsistent with Constitutional principles or threaten the national peace.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[Tom]

The fact that I define something one way doesn't mean I put myself above anybody or that I have authority.

No problem there. So it's your definition, and you act according to it. Makes sense.

The "authority" for that derives from the US military. You may not like that, but tough shit.

Actually, I do like it. Now we're finally at the point where we've overcome all this high-moral-ground bullshit and come to the point: Might is right. You act according to your definition, including killing other people for it, simply because you can, with the intent of having them change their ways.

Yes?

How are you different from the terrorists, then?

I think the honest answer is: "We have more guns." or any variation of that. I'm confident that any argument that tries to make this a "good vs. evil" or a "we're better" or some moral affair can be ripped apart.

Re:Not like cowardly Westerners

[t2t10]

How are you different from the terrorists, then?

For a German of all people, your statements are shameful and display a complete lack of historical awareness and understanding. You're a disgrace to your nation.

Damn

[PiAndWhippedCream]

And encryption won't help.

Re:Damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Not now. But low cost handheld devices using encryption over public networks will go a step in the right direction.

Re:Damn

[KDR_11k]

Not using Facebook will.

I am shocked.

[interkin3tic]

A mysterious blogger who set off an uproar in the Arab world by claiming he was God and hurling insults at the Prophet Muhammad is now behind bars — caught in a sting that used Facebook to track him down.

I found myself surprised that Palestine is so easy to troll. Then I was even more surprised that I was surprised even for a second.

Many in this conservative Muslim town say that isn't enough, and suggested he should be killed for renouncing Islam. Even family members say he should remain behind bars for life.

I have never respected trolls before, but I guess there's a first time for everything. If he does get executed, someone should really saint him. Pastafarians maybe.

Re:I am shocked.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never respected trolls before, but I guess there's a first time for everything. If he does get executed, someone should really saint him. Pastafarians maybe.

That is a truly excellent idea! Pastafarians should automatically grant sainthood to anyone who has been persecuted by organized religion.

Re:I am shocked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo dawg, I hurd you liked trolls. So we put a troll in your troll so you can troll while you troll.

Re:I am shocked.

[ya really]

I have never respected trolls before, but I guess there's a first time for everything. If he does get executed, someone should really saint him. Pastafarians maybe.

Last I knew, the Catholic Church did not have a candidate for patron saint of trolls. Perhaps there's a first.

Re:I am shocked.

[trum4n]

"Even family members say he should remain behind bars for life." Islam is the troll here.

Re:I am shocked.

[Culture20]

That is a truly excellent idea! Pastafarians should automatically grant sainthood to anyone who has been persecuted by organized religion.

Like Martin Luther? Like Mohammed? Like Jesus? Like... just about anyone who made a marked change in their current society's view of the Divine?

Re:I am shocked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Matt and Trey!

Re:I am shocked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious. You are the Western equivalent of a Hamas supporter.

Barbarians...

[VirginMary]

...is what they are! This shows how dangerously crazy these people are. They are the enemies of freedom like all religious fanatics! Anybody who thinks people should be locked up for life or even murdered because of antireligious religious statements are people that are enemies of western values. The problem is that we have no good way of dealing with these lunatics when large parts of entire societies are thinking like this. It's like the West in the Middle Ages.

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, Mary. By the way, you doing anything for dinner tonight?

Sincerely,
God

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that we have no good way of dealing with these lunatics when large parts of entire societies are thinking like this.

Why should we "deal" with them? Sounds like a waste of time to me. If they go to war they will lose and until then they're just sitting in their own country, making themselves miserable. Who cares what these masochists do to get off?

Re:Barbarians...

[Alwin Henseler]

The problem is that we have no good way of dealing with these lunatics when large parts of entire societies are thinking like this.

Sure there is: separation. If you happen to live in a western democracy, don't let your freedoms slip away. Make sure your democracy stays one (as in eternal vigilance). Don't vote for people who want to remove personal freedoms or democratic rights. If you vote for someone & they do, don't vote for them again. Ever. Period.

If people in other countries want to subject themselves to religious law, let them. If that makes them 'lose contact' with the rest of the world, and economic consequences puts them back in the middle ages, that's mostly their problem. If they do want to join the rest of us: shape up in the personal freedoms / democratic department first. In the mean while, they can take the freedoms that my ancestors fought for, from my cold, dead hands.

Re:Barbarians...

[Lord Kano]

It's like the West in the Middle Ages.

An amazing reversal, no?

LK

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

"... antireligious religious statements are people that are enemies of western values. ..."

Are you so sure that "western values" are that much better? There are far too many people in "western culture" promoting "western values" who sincerely believe that "western values" dictate an implicit Judeo-Christian underpinning to government and law, and that everyone else deserves to die, or at least be subjugated.

I think we need to coin the phrase "MODERN values" as something which goes beyond "western", "eastern", "southern" or "northern" values (notice how some of those don't really evoke any specific meaning?). This new phrase would embody the implicit expectation of freedom FROM religion -- more than the current standard freedom OF religion. It's a fallacy that everyone has to choose sides amongst the various bronze-age sky-god belief systems.

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh but we do have separation. We're split up into nations. The problem is, one nation may think that other nations should follow a certain set of beliefs and is willing to cross national borders to impose their beliefs through military force.

Re:Barbarians...

[Pharago]

The only deals we need from those people are natural gas and oil, sooner or later we may not need those either, let them rot in their own religion, it's their worst enemy. Incidents like this one are the kind of thing that makes me despise their culture altogether.

Re:Barbarians...

[shutdown -p now]

The reason why we call them "Western values" is because, like it or not, but humanism (which is a foundation of them) as a coherent philosophy is a Western development. It does not necessarily imply choosing sides etc.

Re:Barbarians...

[tftp]

If you vote for someone & they do, don't vote for them again.

Those lying politicians are expendable like ammo rounds in a belt-fed machine gun, and just as plentiful. Sure, you won't vote for that one any more, but there are twenty more waiting to replace him. And each politician chips another speck of freedom away. Give them time and nothing will remain.

If they do want to join the rest of us: shape up in the personal freedoms / democratic department first.

The most modern theory of political correctness, maintaned by those lying politicians, says that its not "them" who should shape up but it's "you" who has to shape down. Otherwise it would be unfair, or something.

they can take the freedoms that my ancestors fought for, from my cold, dead hands.

They don't care about the temperature of your hands. You probably will be more convenient to them dead. Not that I reject your choice, of course.

Re:Barbarians...

[Mindcontrolled]

It is not that simple, I am afraid. Religion is but a tool of control here. Get those guys off religion and they will act like before, just basing their crap on "racial supremacy", "manifest destiny" or some other bullshit along this lines.

We, ourselves, are not free from this. Look at the amount of "kill brown people" posts that topics like this brings up every time on slashdot. The true root of barbarism is an unreflected "We are different, therefore you are inferior". This mechanism exists entirely independent of religion, though I agree that religion mostly does not help.

Re:Barbarians...

[molnarcs]

I think "western values" are too loaded, as you say, it often implies Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Question is, can we define universal human values, and if so, what rights and wrongs should we include. Years back I read a book by Emmanuel Levinas. The most difficult book I ever read in my life. He tried to define the very basics of ethics, that is, the desire to do good (the desire to do good is a simple definition of ethics, but it's harder to define the specifics).

One thing that Levinas defines as universally bad is "causing suffering and humiliation" (unwanted of course, BDSM folks are obvious exceptions). But in this case, this is not enough. One might claim that the offending facebook post caused him undue mental torment. Levinas also has a positive definition of ethics. As I said, "Totality and Infinity" is one of the most difficult books I ever read, so this short summary doesn't do justice for its complexitiy and richness. However, I'll try.

Basically, he says that we have to have an infinite desire for the Other - which includes the desire for the Other's otherness as well. Sounds redundant, I know, but bear with me for a moment. This desire has two components, one is the desire to know (that is, basic human curiousity) and the other is the desire to preserve the otherness of the Other. An opposing movement is what he calls a totalizing movement. He defines it by the presumption that we can have total knowledge of the Other, that is, we can strip the Other of all it's secrets, achieving a total knowledge of the other (therefore robbing it from it's very otherness: once we believe that our knowledge of the other is Total, the image we have and It becomes the same). At this point he introduces the metaphor of the Face of the Other, and the movement towards the other as communication (we question the other to know more). In fact, he says that this otherness is the very basis of communication - once the Other has no secrets, there isn't much to talk about. Therefore we question the Other to know more (curiousity) but also question the totality of our knowledge at every point, simultaneously possessing the desire to preserve some measure of otherness.

I know all this seems far fetched, but the point, I believe, is that curiousity is one leg on which ethical behaviour stands on, the other being not only a respect for the otherness of the Other, but even love for this otherness, that feeds back to our own curiosity, keeping the discourse on going. The first step of every authoritarian entity is to deny the possiblity of discourse, to forbid language so to speak, the very means by which otherness can be expressed, approached, and cherished.

Levinas himself was religious (jew) - but interestingly, according to his own tenets, one can deduce that religions in general are totalizing - they do not allow for an infinite universe. Well, of course I don't know all religions, but let's just say that all religions that pose an entity that possesses a totality of knowledge, an All Knowing God are by nature totalizing. In an infinite universe, such totality is impossible. In fact, the very definition of infinity is something beyond (+1), something that is not part of the totality of any system. The Other's secret that must be preserved as well as approached via discourse.

Anyway, I'm not sure this all makes sense to anybody, but if you want to read an intellectually challenging book, I highly recommend Totality and Infinity. As far as I know, it's one of the very few attempts to define ethics in absolute terms... most of what we consider "western values" are relativistic, their truth(s) easily traced back to a very specific context, to an ontology.

Re:Barbarians...

[Smiths]

Western values?

  haha.

Like the West in the Middle Ages? Not now?

I love how apparently the West now has a peaceful culture. The past 500 years of genoicde and slavery apparently dont count ..those 2 countries we're occupying now, you know us peaceful Westerns with the nuclear weapons, who have 700 miltary bases and who spend a trillion dollars on weapons were peaceful...its those muslims...they're the ones trying to take over the world!

really? Do you actually believe what you're saying? Please a read a world history. Try RM Roberts...read it from cover to cover, get some perspective

Re:Barbarians...

[h4rm0ny]

Organized religion is indeed one of the most effective tools of mass control. And you are right that were it to suddenly vanish, other means could be substituted. What enables it to be a tool of mass control is primarily the same set of reasons as would enable other tools. Poverty. Lack of Education. And to some extent, a threatening outside force which is something that is always useful to quash dissent. Palestine greatly suffers from the first two and the Israeli government amply provides the last.

Education. Opportunities for women. Open trade. If the UK and the USA spent a portion of the money they have spent on military action against certain countries on providing these things instead. then the West would have countries that were instead friendly and grateful, useful trading partners and we would have enriched ourselves by ploughing our resources not into funding the military-industrial complex, but teachers, engineers and medical professionals. We would see real economic benefits in our own countries to such policies. Mercenaries from the US and UK earn fortunes in Iraq. For every couple of mercenaries you could get at least three teachers. And making teaching a "gold rush" industry would pay our society a far greater dividend than investing in people who will return home merely with a lot of money and more practice and beating the shit out of / killing people.

Of course, the unquestioned belief is that it's far harder to get a country to support a couple of billion dollars of foreign aid than it is to persuade them to accept a hundred billion dollars of military action. I would love to challenge that as I think more of people than this.

Re:Barbarians...

[SuricouRaven]

The US does spend quite a bit on basic food and some medical aid for Gaza. So does Israel. Neither wants the people there to starve, and their economy is basically non-existant due to Israel's semi-sucessful efforts to maintain a total blockade to keep out anything remotely weaponiseable. But sending the aid you want... I don't think it could be done. If you send in teachers, Hamas will execute them as heretics and agents of the west. If you set up schools, Hamas will burn them down for teaching things they regard as 'un-islamic.' If you provide opportunities for women, Hamas will send people to throw battery acid in those women's faces (It's sort of a traditional punishment now) or just kill them. Even if Hamas were gone, the people would do these things themselves. This is not a progressive culture you are dealing with: They will actively fight, and violently so, anything they regard as moving away from their traditional cultural norms.

Re:Barbarians...

[Mindcontrolled]

Airdrop internet enabled cellphones. Lots of them. Access to all ideas and the ability to post undeletable photographic evidence of all shit going on. Think "Singularity Sky"...

Re:Barbarians...

[rich_hudds]

If people really thought that aid worked I'm convinced that they'd happily vote for lots more of it. The truth is though that these countries need political reform not money. Giving money before true political reform often causes more problems than it solves. Even sending people to teach has drawbacks. You're likely to be reducing the local demand for teachers, they'll probably want 'reasonable' living standards which will alter the local economy as people try to cater to their needs etc.. What we need is a good propaganda campaign to shout about our values. Make films and tv shows that they'll enjoy in their own language, but which espouse our values. The BBC World Service is a good example of what we should be doing more of.

Re:Barbarians...

[Ihmhi]

Wow, I'd never thought I'd see a celestial drunk dial of an ex-girlfriend.

Re:Barbarians...

[t2t10]

The problem is that we have no good way of dealing with these lunatics when large parts of entire societies are thinking like this. It's like the West in the Middle Ages.

We do have a good way of dealing with these lunatics--don't deal at all with them. The problem of the West vs. Islamic fundamentalists is just that these people are sitting on oil. If it weren't for that, we could just break off relations and let them figure it out for the next few centuries. Instead, we dirty ourselves by dealing with the likes of the Saudis. And to a lesser degree, we dirty ourselves by dealing with Israel as well, who seems to be rapidly picking up on the intolerance and religious fundamentalism in the region (maybe it's in the water?).

Re:Barbarians...

[KeensMustard]

Anybody who thinks people should be locked up for life or even murdered because of antireligious religious statements are people that are enemies of western values.

What western values wold those be then? The values that allow us to invade other countries, killing 10's of thousands, just so rich old men can be richer, and then pass it off a few years later as an unfortunate mistake (haha! oops!) and let's never mentioned that again? Have we advanced beyond barbarism ourselves? What's the difference? And what's the difference between their fanatics and our own secular fanatics - you know, the ones who will not permit anything to be done about climate change because it might cost us money Do you imagine our crimes to be less barbarous, our fanaticism less damaging then theirs?

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Education was not lacking until recently when Israel started to bomb schools. Palestinians have the highest number of university graduates anywhere in the world. I guess when you don't have anything to do why not study.

Re:Barbarians...

[X0563511]

When's the last time someone was jailed in the US for saying bad things about Jeebus?

Certainly you wouldn't have quite so many calling for indefinite imprisonment (or death) for such a little thing.

Re:Barbarians...

[ChrisMaple]

The problem with waiting for them to go to war and lose is that even in losing they cause a lot of damage, and in losing they are not all wiped out. Long term, Islam and civilization are mutually exclusive. Currently, civilization is losing.

Re:Barbarians...

[ChrisMaple]

Encouraging a democracy among people, the majority of which want to kill you, is not necessarily a wise thing to do.

Re:Barbarians...

[DoofusOfDeath]

...is what they are! This shows how dangerously crazy these people are. They are the enemies of freedom like all religious fanatics! Anybody who thinks people should be locked up for life or even murdered because of antireligious religious statements are people that are enemies of western values. The problem is that we have no good way of dealing with these lunatics when large parts of entire societies are thinking like this. It's like the West in the Middle Ages.

Oh my gosh. That was the most brilliantly self-attacking post ever. My admiration for what you accomplished is without limit.

Don't you realize that your whole post ammounts to indicating that the primary difference between you and Hammas is that that have effective tools for going after people whose views they find dangerous?

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Values are subjective. Right and wrong are subjective. What you hold dear, someone else shits on. What someone else holds dear, you shit on.

By saying what you just did, you have shown yourself to be no better than generalisations that you made.

Re:Barbarians...

[Jawnn]

Anybody who thinks people should be locked up for life or even murdered for any exclusively religious reason are people that are enemies of enlightened values.

There, fixed that for you.
"The west" certainly has no lock on the enlightened notion that laws based on religious doctrine are a bad idea. That's changing, of course. Large pockets of "the west" (like the U.S.) are trending in a decidedly fundamentalist direction, but we have a long ways to go (I hope) before we become a theocracy as stultified as those so common in the Middle East.

Re:Barbarians...

[h4rr4r]

There was a time when people said the same thing about Christianity. Their religion is just too new.

Re:Barbarians...

[Jawnn]

The problem with waiting for them to go to war and lose is that even in losing they cause a lot of damage, and in losing they are not all wiped out. Long term, Islam and civilization are mutually exclusive. Currently, civilization is losing.

Really? So you think that "Islam" has contributed nothing to civilization. Interesting...
History, of course, would indicate otherwise, but when one's view of "Islam" is shaped by Fox News, its tough to pick up on those subtle details. One won't learn from Bill O'Reilly that while the "western world" was wallowing in the mud of the middle ages, largely ignorant and illiterate, the academic center of the world was in a region populated largely by... (OMG!) Muslims. To be sure, the Middle East has fallen on hard times, culturally. The advances which that region brought to the world began to decline about the same time that the influence of the clerics, upon government and law, began it's ascent. One can see the very same phenomenon, albeit only in it's nascent stages, in the U.S. Anti-intellectualism and religious fundamentalism are on the rise. I'd say that the people who think The Creationist Museum are a pretty neat idea are the real enemies of civilization.

Re:Barbarians...

[h4rm0ny]

Where are you talking about?

Re:Barbarians...

[wrook]

are people that are enemies of western values.

If they are the enemies of our values, then perhaps we should declare war on their thinking process. I suggest we call it "the Crusades". It's a catchy title for a war. If history has taught us anything it's that we shouldn't let heathens like this pollute our societies. If it isn't stamped out it is likely to spread like a cancer. We should think of it as a kind of "Holy War" to rid the world of this wrong thinking once and for all.

Wait... maybe I should reread that history textbook one more time. I've got this nagging feeling I'm missing something important.

Re:Barbarians...

[ultranova]

We, ourselves, are not free from this. Look at the amount of "kill brown people" posts that topics like this brings up every time on slashdot. The true root of barbarism is an unreflected "We are different, therefore you are inferior". This mechanism exists entirely independent of religion, though I agree that religion mostly does not help.

We don't imprison or kill people because they mock whatever we hold sacred, brown people do, therefore we are superior to brown people, or at least our culture is superior to theirs. And yes, religious fanaticism is just a single symptom of an inferior culture.

Oh well. It's a pity about this guy, but maybe his existence is evidence that their culture can grow up. After all, ours did. And we should be careful not to provide an outside enemy for the powerful to point to as a distraction.

Re:Barbarians...

[muntis]

Who are you to say that "western values" are the best values or do they even can be applied there. Maybe you are western value fanatic. And I have heard that some western value fanatics fight to force them on others. How does it differ one fanatic from other?

Re:Barbarians...

[PracticalM]

Probably Charles Lee Smith, 1928 in Little Rock, Arkansas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lee_Smith

Re:Barbarians...

[X0563511]

Yea, because 2010 is so much like 1928. You just bolstered my point.

Re:Barbarians...

[hey!]

Satre put it in a nutshell: "Hell is other people."

Re:Barbarians...

[XorNand]

Kinda useless to give them all cell phones without first beefing up the wireless and Internet infrastructure. That part might be a bit more difficult and time-consuming.

Re:Barbarians...

[SideshowBob]

The accomplishments you speak of aren't attributable to Islam any more than the Renaissance is attributable to Christianity.

Re:Barbarians...

[poity]

Islam contributed nothing, just as Christianity contributed nothing. It was Muslim mathematicians, astronomers, chemists, and architects in the early centuries CE who contributed to civilization. These people of knowledge and ingenuity made their contributions IN SPITE of the superstitious beliefs of their times not as a result of them. And furthermore, regarding your comparison of the US to Muslim countries, I reject your assertion that we are headed in the same direction to a dark age of religious rule mainly on the grounds that in the US we have so many people like myself who have experienced secularism and will fight tooth and nail to never go back to an era of rule by superstition. Citizens in most muslim countries have never tasted such secularism and they are far less likely to fight for it.

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with going to war is the outcome isn't guaranteed at all. Judaism defeated the Hellenistic culture. Christianity beat out the polytheism of Rome. Islam, although the area was largely depopulated and hurting from a long period of conflict, beat out the regional powers. As Dennett has pointed out, the religions we see today are survivors that could adapt to the threats that took out all the religions we don't see. No one should take winning in a battle w/ religion for granted.

I, for one, am all for neutering harsh religion. Educate the masses on the tricks religion uses to survive and how they came about (requires research). I think this is the best vaccination against virulent doctrine of both religion, politics, and any other area.

Re:Barbarians...

[modecx]

You know, he's right--in the sense that some Muslim individuals did great things, particularly in mathematics, old world physics, and the various other sciences (indeed aiding the creation of the modern scientific method). These individuals contributed to many things we know and love today. True enough.

Now, Islam? Did Islam say "go and do these things, and learn about the world!"? Not as far as I know. Getting down to it, claiming these advances in understanding to the Islamic faith is like attributing Isaac Newton's, or Leibniz, or any number of other discoveries to Christianity.

No, the attribution should be placed where it is deserved--to the individuals who discovered and distilled these ideas into something useful. These people just happened to be Christian, or Muslim, or Hindi, or whatever.

Re:Barbarians...

[ToasterMonkey]

Long term, Islam and civilization are mutually exclusive. Currently, civilization is losing.

I think you should open a damned textbook and look at the history of Islam and other world religions before making that sweeping claim.

What an ignorant thing to say.

More accurate would be "Religion and civilization are mutually exclusive"
Is the damage it has done worth it? That's a serious question. Theocracy or not, the world's powers would have found something to squabble over for sure. At least land & resources is more transparent than man in the sky.

You have the luxury (I assume) to sit back and relax in a country with a very muted religious influence (by design), and ignore the reason for it. Don't blame the world's problems on someone else's religion completely ignoring the fact that it took major governmental changes to get to this state. You should hold this up as a big gleaming reminder of WHY we have a separation of church and state, and never forget what we were without it.

Re:Barbarians...

[ToasterMonkey]

The accomplishments you speak of aren't attributable to Islam any more than the Renaissance is attributable to Christianity.

Well if you wont grant any positive accomplishments to either religion, then the balance sheet very clearly shows that Islam needs a few hundred more years to catch up on the atrocities committed in the name of christian God.

Re:Barbarians...

[makomk]

The US does spend quite a bit on basic food and some medical aid for Gaza. So does Israel. Neither wants the people there to starve

Neither wants the people there to starve to death. I believe the words one Israeli government minister used was "putting them on a diet" - not enough food aid i allowed in the country to avoid mass malnutrition. Also, bear in mind that whenever you see some impressive figure for the value of food aid generously supplied by Israel that - despite what you might think - it's not actually paid for by the Israeli government. The money comes from international charities who then have to pay the Israeli goverment money to let their shipments in. The US government may be providing slightly more funding, but I'm not sure they are.

and their economy is basically non-existant due to Israel's semi-sucessful efforts to maintain a total blockade to keep out anything remotely weaponiseable.

Destroying the economy of the Gaza strip isn't a side-effect of the blockade - it's the stated goal. The entire point of the strategy was to force Hamas out of power by wiping out the economy and hoping the population would rise up and kick them out in anger. It was a stupid idea, but that's international politics for you. The restrictions on what food could be imported weren't arbitrary either - they were pretty obviously targetted at preventing local food manufacture.

Re:Barbarians...

[ToasterMonkey]

It is not that simple, I am afraid. Religion is but a tool of control here. Get those guys off religion and they will act like before, just basing their crap on "racial supremacy", "manifest destiny" or some other bullshit along this lines.

We, ourselves, are not free from this. Look at the amount of "kill brown people" posts that topics like this brings up every time on slashdot. The true root of barbarism is an unreflected "We are different, therefore you are inferior". This mechanism exists entirely independent of religion, though I agree that religion mostly does not help.

What is needed is a strong & just government. Blaming other religions/cultures excuses one from acknowledging their own government keeping theirs in check.

Re:Barbarians...

[Xyrus]

How is this trash insightful?

ANY religion the doles out punishment to non-believers and elevates one segment of society above another has the same traits. The difference, as is always the case, is how PEOPLE choose to interpret and follow their religion.

Times change. Civilization changes. Religions do not. Only the interpretation and execution of the religion changes. If these change to meet the needs of society, then they are, at worst, not a problem. If these do not change, then they a detrimental to progress and can even drag civilization backwards. As an example, see how the Catholic Church behaved during the Dark ages.

It's not the religion. The problems are caused, as always, by the people.

Re:Barbarians...

[ToasterMonkey]

Airdrop internet enabled cellphones. Lots of them. Access to all ideas and the ability to post undeletable photographic evidence of all shit going on. Think "Singularity Sky"...

Why? I mean what good would that do here? I thought the Internet itself was supposed to bring enlightenment across the world? It spreads information, not truth. People choose what to believe based on the worst possible logic. If we jacked everyone's brain directly into the thing would that finally do it? Look at the bullcrap in ONE Slashdot forum. Does the Internet really solve the problem you think it does?

Maybe you just don't understand what makes people tick.

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, so far, is does work a shitload better.

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of reading about the spanish inquision. When will they learn that you cannot control a persons thoughts?

Re:Barbarians...

[Dragon Bait]

"western values" dictate an implicit Judeo-Christian

Don't let ignorance destroy perfectly good terminology. Western values value the individual and have Greek origins that pre-date Christianity.

If you want to throw around terms like modern values you're going to have to define it in terms that declare it separate and distinct from the definition of western values.

Re:Barbarians...

[chrb]

It's like the West in the Middle Ages.

You don't need to go that far back... It's like the West in the 1920s...

Re:Barbarians...

[VirginMary]

Fair enough!

Re:Barbarians...

[Belial6]

That's why we need a good alien invasion, or robot revolt. Give people an enemy that looks more different than their current enemy and they will be pals in no time.

Re:Barbarians...

[Jawnn]

I didn't say that. I did say that those advances came from a region populated largely by followers of Islam, thus putting the lie to the parent's assertion that Islam was the enemy of civilization.

Re:Barbarians...

[u38cg]

It's a seriously sad day when shit like this gets modded insightful on here. Yes, parts of the Muslim world are in a serious mess, partly due to Western interference. But claiming they are somehow the opposite of civilisation (as if that even made sense) is just utter bullshit.

Re:Barbarians...

[u38cg]

Ethics are a difficult area, mode more difficult by the fact everyone has an opinion and no idea how to derive them or from what axioms and what the relative merits of each are. I don't have an answer either, except the enforced teaching of philosophy to all schoolkids.

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ala Ach Beer everyone.

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Like the West in the Middle Ages? Not now?
Obviously when someone is promoting "Western Values" they mean now, yes. If you want to play the blame game, though, any and every culture is easy to indict. That isn't exactly productive if the goal is to improve today, though, is it?

> 700 miltary bases and who spend a trillion dollars on weapons

It's like... hmm, let's use a car analogy, slashdot loves car analogies. It's like spending an extra $10k for a safer car. You're not doing it so that you can take $10k more damage, you're doing it to avoid a much greater price in damage.

Military expenses aren't one-dimensional linear scales. Spending twice as much on guns doesn't mean you do twice as much shooting, for example. Western militaries spend big bucks on more precise equipment and more training, enabling them to do *less* damage.

You can spend a trillion dollars to do exactly a billion dollars of damage exactly when and where you want it, or you can spend a billion dollars to do a trillion dollars of damage carpet bombing a city, or a bunch of numbers arbitrarily in between. The point is that it's not how much you spend, it's what you do (or don't do) with it.

> its those muslims...they're the ones trying to take over the world!
Ask yourself who is still fighting wars to gain territory and that viewpoint does make a little more sense. Not total sense, mind you, but some sense. You can probably "thank" a couple world wars for why the West no longer fights to gain territory.

> those 2 countries we're occupying now, you know us peaceful Westerns with the nuclear weapons
The nuclear weapons not being used, and the two countries having been ridiculously hostile ones? (Only one of the two wars should have happened, but no one is claiming the other was a peaceful country).

Re:Barbarians...

[Insanity Defense]

I'd say that the people who think The Creationist Museum are a pretty neat idea are the real enemies of civilization.

I'll disagree.

The real enemies are those who would force their religion on others. Such as the recent surge of attempts to put Creationism in Science classes. The groups over lap but are not the same. It is when they try to enforce their religious views on others they are dangerous to society. Merely holding those views doesn't make them dangerous.

I have never had an explanation from those who claim that God gave man free will as to why they then try to use their religion to compel obedience to their standards. God gave free will but then tells you not to use it or suffer eternal damnation?

Re:Barbarians...

[blindseer]

Make sure your democracy stays one

I believe that part of the problem here is democracy. The majority has ruled that not believing the same things as them is an offense worthy of punishment. I am glad that the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a republic. Here I can say things that the majority does not like and still enjoy the protection of the law preventing arrest for what I have said.

Re:Barbarians...

[sourcerror]

"And to a lesser degree, we dirty ourselves by dealing with Israel as well, who seems to be rapidly picking up on the intolerance and religious fundamentalism"

Like it's a new phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Re:Barbarians...

[Requiem18th]

I prefer the term secular values.

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

from from religion is nothing but a tool to discriminate against those who do choose to have a faith.

the more "free" expression is the expression as written in the bill of rights, ie, "the freedom of religion", as it included by default the freedom to believe in nothing.

and yes, if you brushed up on your history, the forefathers did debate this and chose it for this very reason.

Re:Barbarians...

[arth1]

Islam contributed nothing, just as Christianity contributed nothing. It was Muslim mathematicians, astronomers, chemists, and architects in the early centuries CE who contributed to civilization

You mean there were Moslem mathematicians, astronomers, chemists and architects before Muhammad's epiphany in 610 CE?

Re:Barbarians...

[arth1]

What is needed is a strong & just government.

Indeed. So why does Israel & Co. do their utmost to prevent Palestine from ever achieving having a strong government?

Re:Barbarians...

[indiechild]

Sounds to me like you're describing the modern day Tea Party.

Re:Barbarians...

[JesseMcDonald]

The majority has ruled that not believing the same things as them is an offense worthy of punishment. I am glad that the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a republic.

That's going in the right direction, but republics are ultimately just as answerable to prominent majority opinions as a direct democracy; it takes a bit longer to get the laws changed, but the will of the majority always wins out in the end. This is true of every system of government, BTW, even dictatorships—no government can survive active opposition from a majority of its citizens. They require at least acquiescence to maintain their control. A republic freely formed from Palestine's population would enforce Hamas' Islam at least as strictly as Palestine does now.

What really matters is not the form of government in effect, but a strong belief in freedom/liberty among the general population, plus the will to oppose anyone—even elected administration acting within the law—who may try to take that freedom away. In particular, if "law and order" becomes a higher priority than liberty then the country is doomed.

Re:Barbarians...

[VirginMary]

Sounds to me like you're describing the modern day Tea Party.

And your point is? That somehow makes the religious fanatics in the Middle East any less barbarous? Yes, the millions of dangerous religious lunatics in the US also worry me!

Re:Barbarians...

[Synonymous Homonym]

Are you so sure that "western values" are that much better? There are far too many people in "western culture" promoting "western values" who sincerely believe that "western values" dictate an implicit Judeo-Christian underpinning to government and law, and that everyone else deserves to die, or at least be subjugated.

I think we need to coin the phrase "MODERN values"

I prefer "secular values". What "modern" means may change over time.

Re:Barbarians...

[geekoid]

well, nothing in the last 500 years. All they have is oil.

The idea of Islamic radicals is really only about 60 years old.
There are people in those countries old enough to remember what is was like before this turn toward stupid violence. They don't like it and blame the local people. It's like Billy Graham coming to wield political power in the US.

Re:Barbarians...

[Synonymous Homonym]

An end to tribal wars, and a tradition of law that does not depend on the mood-swings of some king, are not attributable to Islam, nor is the tradition of keeping knowledge alive and expanding on it by studying the old masters, using a common alphabet and language. Certainly these were not the intentions of the author of the Quran, who significantly and permanently changed the economic landscape of his home lands only to get laid.

The Rennessaince, which copied these concepts, replacing Arabian with Latin and Sharia with Roman Law, was of course contrary to Christian traditions, the contributions to science of which consisted mostly of copying the Bible over and over again. Only after the Rennessaince did Christianity install the Inquisition as an attempt at secular justice.

The Christian World did improve on the concepts considerably, however, and successfully, and even China has adopted them by now. And yet, religious believers of either confession are still more occupied with their contest over who has the more powerful imaginary friend, and the Islamic World has suffered degradation ever since the fanatic Wahabite sect got significant influence over Arabia at the behest of British and American oil companies.

Re:Barbarians...

[RockDoctor]

When's the last time someone was jailed in the US for saying bad things about Jeebus?

More importantly, when will be the next time?

Re:Barbarians...

[Grumbleduke]

Of course, something like this (someone being locked up for trolling people on Facebook) would never happen in the Western world.

Oh, wait... it has happened, admittedly on a smaller scale. Our society isn't that much better; we just have different things we get worked up over.

Re:Barbarians...

[q7h0u6h7]

While I won't argue about these religions' contributions to science, they did make direct (as in money) and cultural contribution to the arts. Are we using civilization as a synonym for science, or do you believe it reasonable, as I do, to count contributions to the arts among contributions to civilization?

Re:Barbarians...

[VirginMary]

I would say that comparing that to life imprisonment or even the death penalty shows that you have no sense of scale. Also the guy in Britain threatened the life of a real person not a make-belief entity!

Re:Barbarians...

[Grumbleduke]

Scale is just a case of numbers. Once you say it is OK to lock someone up for saying something some people don't like, there's nothing stopping you locking them up for ever for saying something worse - the principle is the same.

I don't remember reading about them threatening the life of anyone; they were merely trolling some Facebook memorial pages.

Re:Barbarians...

[VirginMary]

I am not sure which incident you are referring to? I am aware of two involving Twitter: 1) A person was about a Twitter message where someone was threatening to blow up an airport and 2) where a British politician suggested that a writer should be stoned to death. Now, both were very likely just very poor judgement and taste and not meant seriously. Still, I am not sure that it is a big deal for people to get into a moderate amount of trouble for doing things like that. Freedom of Speech comes with responsibilities and limits! One can argue of course what an appropriate response should be to what was most likely a joke in poor taste. Personally if I was the writer I would hope for the politician to get into a fair amount of trouble over his "joke". Maybe you're thinking of a different incident?

Re:Barbarians...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the USA have a different Constitution back in 1928?

Re:Barbarians...

[Grumbleduke]

I am not sure which incident you are referring to? I am aware of two involving Twitter: 1) A person was about a Twitter message where someone was threatening to blow up an airport and 2) where a British politician suggested that a writer should be stoned to death.

I was referring to neither of those incidents, but the one I linked to. It concerned someone "trolling" a Facebook page. In your cases, 1) received a fine (of £1,000, recently appealed unsuccessfully and a criminal record) and 2) has yet to be charged, from what I understand.

In the case I mentioned, the individual was imprisoned for his actions. A criminal record and imprisonment are not trivial things - and while trolling is unpleasant, one hopes that there is a more suitable way of dealing with it.

Anyways, I wasn't intending to suggest that what was done was particularly wrong, but highlighting the irony of the OP's comment about how a society that locked people away for Facebook postings was barbaric.

Isn't freedom great?

[pete6677]

I'm glad to know that this is the kind of freedom the brave Palestinian fighters are fighting Israel for. To have a Taliban lifestyle imposed on themselves.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[DSS11Q13]

Having lived in the West Bank, I can tell you this is a Hamas thing, in the Gaza Strip. Probably exercised by very low tech protocols of literally having the netcafe owner tell the police. The West Bank leadership is also completely different, and I am extremely skeptical that there is any kind of internet monitoring there. There isn't enough organization to get internet to many places, let alone have technology and infrastructure sophisticated enough to monitor it. Now the Israelis on the other hand...

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[katz]

You gonna offer up evidence for that accusation? Last I heard, Israel has free speech.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[OnePumpChump]

Thing is, they get that whether they're economically and militarily oppressed or not. Actually, if they weren't, they might not have voted Hamas in in the first place. So maybe they wouldn't.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[EnsilZah]

As an Israeli I have no goddamned fucking idea what you're talking about.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Sun]

I second Katz above me in the request for any substantiation to that claim. Not only am I not familiar with any anti-blasphemy laws, anti-religious public commentators have actually moved on to become members of parliament in the past.

As for criticizing the government, not only is that not forbidden by law, it is being actively practiced, including going as far as advocating boycotts on Israel, including by people whose paycheck is largely funded by the Israeli tax payer (government backed academic institutes, for example).

Shachar

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[metrix007]

So if I go around saying judaism is fake and yahweh is a made up imaginary friend, perhaps with some anti-star of david propaganda I won't have a problem? Wrong.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Sun]

Actually, if they weren't, they might not have voted Hamas in in the first place.

A common misconception. Hamas was voted in not because of the anti-Israel agenda, but because they promised to fight the extremely corrupt Fatah regime that preceded it. That was the focus of their election campaign, and that was what actually got them the votes. That would have happened whether they were oppressed (with or without quotes) or not.

Shachar

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

The freedom to be batshit crazy and burn alive people who disagree with you is still a freedom...

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Greyfox]

I am reminded of a passage from the Principia Discordia:

A SERMON ON ETHICS AND LOVE

One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?

"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"

WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

You actually arguing with someone from Israel over Israeli laws? Does the pit of arrogant ignorance of Slashdotters even *have* a bottom?

#declare "metrix007" = "complete shithead"

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Quiet_Desperation]

The freedom to be batshit crazy and burn alive people who disagree with you is still a freedom

Er... not so much for the ones burning...

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Frodo]

Yes, exactly, If you go around saying judaism is fake, absolutely nothing is going to happen to you. Well, some people may be pissed off, but that's it. Nobody is going to arrest you, send Mossad after you, have black helicopters take you to secret prison. Some people may yell at you, that's about it.
Yes, I am Israeli and lived in Israel for 13 years, and I know what I am talking about. Looks like you do not.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Mindcontrolled]

Stoned and batshit crazy as it is, the Principia Discordia do offer an amazing amount of insight. Then again, it depicts the ultimate cynical god. What this passage says is just "You are deeply flawed, that's your nature. Fuck off and deal with it." Probably the only way, but I rather go with the subgenius interpretation of discordianism. Slightly more humane. Slack, brother, slack.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is every Israeli an expert in Israeli law? A better expert than all experts that aren't Israeli? Interesting, how did yo come to this conclusion.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was supposed to be funny , yes? :D

Yes, Israel (specially the Ghaza) is the most free part of the world.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Smiths]

haha.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&year=2009

Israel trails Kuwait (ranked 60th), Lebanon (ranked 61st) and UAE (ranked 86th) in its region. Overall Israel was ranked one behind Guinea-Bissau and right before Qatar.

Recently they made a law requiring non-Jewish citizens to take loyalty oath to "Jewish state of Israel"

http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/israels_loyalty_oath_time_bomb

Both groups have their share of religious fantics, the difference is the Palestenians were the indigenous people who were violently pushed out of their homes to make way for this new group of religious fanatics. And if you say...but it was theirs according to the bible, I'm afraid that makes you a religious fanatic.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Smiths]

Thats just hasbra for goy who don't know about Israel.

Israel is hardly free. Not a lick if you're Palestenian, and even the peace loving jewish Israelis arent safe there.

Take for example

Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician who, citing his opposition to weapons of mass destruction, revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986. He was subsequently lured to Italy by a Mossad spy, where he was drugged and kidnapped by Israeli intelligence agents. He was transported to Israel and ultimately convicted in a trial that was held behind closed doors

Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 years in solitary confinement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

And while the Boycott Divesment movement is growing...they are going to make ILLEGAL for Israelis to particpate.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=194370

Or what about the weekly peaceful protests in Bil’in that are broken up by police?

heres a story about a nice young jewish American girl who had her eye shot out cause she was holding a...Turkish flag!
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/08/emily_henochowi.php

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[katz]

Way to go shifting the base of the argument. The statement in question read: "Blasphemy is illegal in Israel as well." This is a blatant lie. Find me in the Israeli law code anything banning blasphemy. Everything else you quote--the loyalty oath recognizing Israel as a Jewish state--is wholly irrelevant to this matter. Stick with the subject without resorting to strawmen to try and bolster your argument.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wars don't stop until we have mind engineering. Until we can rationally decide what we want to feel, what we should feel as a whole to make situations improve. That's what engineering is: vision a goal and then do systematic work to reach it. Humans still lack both tools and knowledge to do that with minds.

As long as feelings can affect and move us without control, humans are helpless and drifting semi-sentient race.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[h4rm0ny]

Absolutely accurate. And to my mind, if the West had reacted with less of a reflex strike at Hamas (freezing assets, cancelling aid, etc) and instead said: "okay, we have no choice but to treat them as representatives of the people", then a great deal of good could have been achieved. Instead, the West did everything it could to topple the democratically elected group in the naive belief that they could put a grossly corrupt body back in power, resulting in yet more bloodshed, resentment and suffering.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[katz]

Please re-read what you wrote:

Mordechai Vanunu "revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program". Now, I don't care /what/ his motive was; the fact is, he was convicted of treason and endangering national security after he revealed confidential, strategic information. There's not much to argue about that.

Regarding the Ariel boycotters, where in the article does it mention that under Israeli law, what they are doing is illegal (or 'ILLEGAL')? That's a lone Israeli politician Avigdor Lieberman expressing his opinion that the boycotters should be denied Government funding. No mention of 'illegal' there.

Regarding Emily Henochowicz, that is tragic.

Anyway, I see your posts here and notice you consistently temper blatant falsehoods with sob stories (however true). I encourage you to please remove emotion from your argument if you want to be taken seriously.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Sun]

I started to write a detailed response, and decided it doesn't matter. Anyone writing:

Not a lick if you're Palestenian

is obviously not after the facts. Funny thing is, you are accusing me of propaganda.

So lets keep things on topic here, and you are welcome to contact me in private if you want an actual debate. For this thread, grandparent said that Israel has anti-blasphemy laws. I said "no, it doesn't". If you have evidence to the contrary, please bring it forward. I'm not interested in conducting a public "Israel is evil" "no it isn't" debate right now.

I will answer the one relevant example you gave (i.e. - Liberman and the Boycott movement) - there is a huge gap between what Liberman vows to do, and what actually happens. Speech, including hypocritical self-serving feel-good-while-burning-the-ship-down Boycott movement, is free in Israel, and is, thankfully, likely to remain so in the foreseeable future, no matter what Liberman says.

Shachar

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Israel, blasphemy is covered by Articles 170 and 173 of the penal code.

Blasphemy Laws: Israel.

So let's go straight to the source and check Articles 170 and 173!

Article 170: PENAL LAW 5737-1977 - SIXTH EDITION

Article Seven: Offenses against Religious Sentiment and Tradition
Insult to religion
170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of to reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then he is liable to three years imprisonment.

Injury to religious sentiment
173. If a person does any of the following, then he is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) he publishes a publication that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) he voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.

Penal Law 5737-1977. (Link goes to a PDF file)

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything else you quote--the loyalty oath recognizing Israel as a Jewish state--is wholly irrelevant to this matter.

Forcing people to pledge in support of a religion is essentially no different than banning people from speaking against a religion.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Mindcontrolled]

But we do have mind engineering - it is called language, propaganda, semantics, redefinition of words and worldviews. The engineering crowd just writes this off as "liberal arts" - but it is what you are talking about. If we want to go there full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes is a completely different question....

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Smiths]

Having to take a loyalty oath to the "Jewish" state or risk losing your citizenship sure seems like a type of Blasphemy...as it only applies to Non-Jews and they have to swore to loyalty to a "Jewish" state.

but as you and I well know the only difference between Israel and Hamas is one are fanatics with good PR the other are just poor refugees.

Lets see what the the Rabbis have to say

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t_LxpCY2G8&feature=player_embedded

According to the book’s author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, “Non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and should be killed in order to “curb their evil inclinations.” “If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments there is nothing wrong with the murder,” Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source he declared: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

And this fits right into thinking of Israels current President who in the past few weeks has been speaking Population transfers of Non-Jews out of Israel...which of course is necessary if Israel is to remain a "Democratic" and Jewish state. If you're going to lose your majority in the state, you just forcibly remove the people living there. Thats democracy, right?

Ah, Israel, why are the Palestenians so angry with you, is it really that hard to understand? Really?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/lieberman-presents-plans-for-population-exchange-at-un-1.316197

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

Article 170: PENAL LAW 5737-1977 - SIXTH EDITION
Article Seven: Offenses against Religious Sentiment and Tradition

Insult to religion
170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of to reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then he is liable to three years imprisonment.

Injury to religious sentiment
173. If a person does any of the following, then he is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) he publishes a publication that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) he voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.

Penal Law 5737-1977.

So, it looks like blasphemy IS illegal, but not really enforced. Which is fine. The US has a lot of ridiculous laws from the 18th and 19th centuries that have never really been repealed.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[SuricouRaven]

On the first: He gave nuclear secrets to the media. I think you'll find that's illegal in just about every country that has any knowledge of nuclear technology at all. As a general rule, information on how to get your hands on a city-smasher is quite restricted.
On the second: Wow, he is is angry he is... cutting their government funding. Er... no, that doesn't sound terribly oppressive to me. No executions? Not even a little jail time? Maybe a visit from a man with a baseball bat? Just terminating their grant money.
On the third: I'm finding conflicting stories. By some accounts the protesters can get violent - the police then use tear gas to break it up. Only one protester has been injured, in a freak accident: Canister hit them in the face.

The main conclusion I come to is that there is a reason Israel is a major investor in non-lethal weaponry research.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[SuricouRaven]

But it does highlight an underlying problem: When one person believes it is their religious/social/political duty to forcefully violate the freedom of another... then, unavoidably, *someone* will get their freedom removed. It just cannot be helped.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Sun]

To be fair, I'm not sure how much the term "democratic" applies to Hammas. We are talking about a body that slaughtered its own people for no greater offense than belonging to the rival party.

Shachar

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[makomk]

On the first: He gave nuclear secrets to the media.

The "nuclear secrets" he gave to the media were the fact that Israel had a secret nuclear weapon program and a number of nuclear-armed missiles. Everyone already suspected this, but it gave the Israeli government a political advantage to be able to pretend they didn't - especially when bombing other states for daring to have their own nuclear programs (for nuclear weapons or otherwise).

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[zes]

Heard of meditation?
You can't forcefully subject other people to it but you can start with yourself.

(As a side note, we do have television. It is similar to what you describe)

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Paradise Pete]

You gonna offer up evidence for that accusation?

Perhaps it is no longer enforced, but it appears to be on the books:

Injury to religious sentiment
173. If a person does any of the following, then he is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) he publishes a publication that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) he voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.

Taken from this PDF document.
Am I misunderstanding something? That seems to be pretty close to a blasphemy law. "Any word or sound" is pretty strong language. I was surprised to see it.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Ihmhi]

Yeah, an oath of allegiance is ridiculous!

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Source

Everyone who seeks to become a U.S. citizen (i.e. Non-Americans until they're naturalized) have to take this exact oath. I would think it's standard practice for immigrants wishing to become citizens in nearly any civilized country.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[katz]

If what you say were relevant, then the same could be said for countries bearing flags with crosses and state churches such as Norway, since they also have require loyalty oaths. If I'm pledging fealty to a country like that, it's the same thing. Yet by and large no one seems to have a problem with it.

The rabbi you quote was arrested for incitement. How is his thinking relevant to Israeli law? Whom does he represent? Who follows his advice? Looks to me like you're grabbing at whatever you can to try and confuse the issue.

Again, you're grasping here. A hateful person (who, again, was arrested for incitement) calling for killing somehow ties in with a supposed plan to "transfer" non-Jews out of Israel? Where is your causal link between the rabbi's words and an Israeli minister's aspirations? All I've seen from you is some vague implication that somehow the rabbi's mentality "fits right into [the] thinking of Israel['s] current President ..."

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister (not its President Shimon Peres or Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu), proposed territorial swaps, not "Population transfers". There are huge diplomatic, economic and legal differences between these terms.

You're waaaaaay too emotional, dude. Most of your arguments so far have rested on shaky ground or blatant falsehoods couched in heavy appeals to pathos. Not convincing, sorry.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[h4rm0ny]

Okay. There are few "good guys" in this mess. Let's just call them the significantly more elected group than their Western-backed rivals. It'll do. I do still maintain that the West should not have responded as it did. That was disgraceful from countries that talk of democracy.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[metrix007]

Lol. Just because he is from Israel, does not make him a reliable source for his countries laws. Critical thinking my friend, try it out one time. You may want to try reading this, which paints a less than stellar picture.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[metrix007]

What about holocaust denial?

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[t2t10]

The phrase "so help me God" is optional, and you can replace "solemny affirm" for "oath".

And, besides, who cares about swearing something by someone else's imaginary sky fairy? Whatever power the oath is supposed to have is lost when you make people swear on something that they don't give a shit about.

I would object to a public oath invoking God, not because it offends me, but because people might falsely think that I believe in idiotic ideas like "God". But as long as it's a private oath, you can add Cthulhu and the Virgin Mary to the oath, and all you'll get out of me is a chuckle.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[t2t10]

Now, I don't care /what/ his motive was; the fact is, he was convicted of treason and endangering national security after he revealed confidential, strategic information. There's not much to argue about that.

Israel is a rogue state when it comes to WMDs: it clearly has WMD capabilities but has been unwilling to submit to international regulations, treaties, or inspection. Whether his treatment is justifiable within Israel's law really doesn't matter because Israel's conduct itself is illegitimate.

The West should have granted him political asylum, just like we should everybody who blows the whistle on undisclosed WMD programs.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[transami]

That's probably b/c many Jewish people think Judaism is fake too.

So many Muslims actually believe it all as absolute fundamental truth in their heart of hearts. In this regard we can have some pity for them. They simply do not know better. And for this reason they tend to be less tolerant of other faiths. But we see this in all fundamental sects of faiths, including Christianity and Judaism.

But the religion is just a pretext. This is really about politics. Regimes seek to protect their power, which includes their own image of themselves, no matter who they are. This will manifest in different ways depending on the circumstances, such as internal power structure, perceived threats, etc. For example, they might not have anything happen to them if they say Judaism is fake, but if a reporter in the U.S. is critical of Israel they have to be very careful about their wording or they could very easily loose their job.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[t2t10]

Find me in the Israeli law code anything banning blasphemy.

Number 170 and 173:

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9F

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[blackraven14250]

That's absurd. There's plenty of journalists who call out Israel in the US, and still have their jobs - particularly when Israel resumed the construction of settlements recently.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[metrix007]

On the Wikipedia entry for blasphemy laws, it states Blasphemy is covered under sections 170 and 173 the Israeli penal code. It then redirects to a Hebrew site which I cannot read.

I translated the relevant sections however with Google, and 170 states that:

Destroying, damaging, or desecrating a place of worship, or any object held sacred crowd of people, deliberately degrade their religion, or knowingly that they may see this act an insult to their religion, Dino - three years imprisonment.

The key part there is deliberately degrade their religion. That seems like a rather abstract law, and something that insulting Judaism would be covered under.

173 states:

(1)

Publishes advertising that injure blatantly religious beliefs or their feelings of others;

(2)

Makes a public place and in the hearing of a certain word or sound that may harm the faith or gross violation of religious feelings.

So yeah, distributing stuff about Judaism sucking is a no no. This would not have to be hate speech....simply a pamphlet stating why Judaism is false and should be avoided would also come under that law it seems like.

Not to mention the understandable yet unacceptable laws against holocaust denial. There is no excuse for banning ideas and opinions, however ignorant and misinformed they may be.

References:

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law#Israel
2.http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9F

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Smiths]

+1

Its funny you should see US politicians squirm when they are asked about this...Actually only Helen Thomas has the spine to ask...they all avoid the question, although they and us both know...are there nukes in the middle east?

the reason they dont answer the question is that there is a law that says we cant give military aid to a nuclear country that isnt a memember of the NPT. So the politicians response is to simply not answer the question.

Its absurd to me that a nation 'of the people' with a free media would tolerate such a belittling of our intellegence as this, especially when you combine it with the moral high ground we take on Irans nuclear program...but eh thats America.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Mashiki]

Not a big deal, you're trying to make an issue out of a law that's not enforced, but still on the book. Canada has a similar law:

Blasphemous Libel

Offence
296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Question of fact
(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

Saving
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 260.

So yes you're missing something, you have a hate-on for Israel. In fact, several european countries have functioning blasphemy laws, and they're being used right now to suppress dissent.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[nadavwr]

I can second parent post. As an Israeli atheist I can tell you that most Israelis range from non-practicing to non-religious.
I have no compunctions about voicing my convictions in public, and generally find echos in mainstream society.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[ultranova]

According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations."

According to Wikipedia, this guy has been arrested several times (once over said book), and in general seems to be Israel's version of Fred Phelps.

If you want to judge Israel because of their policies, fine, but please don't judge them - or anyone else for that matter - because one of them happens to be a lunatic, especially when the rest keep on condemning his words and actions.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[ultranova]

That's probably b/c many Jewish people think Judaism is fake too.

So many Muslims actually believe it all as absolute fundamental truth in their heart of hearts.

"Jew" is an ethnicity. "Judaism" is a religion. A Jew may or may not follow Judaism. "Muslim" is not an ethnicity, it's someone who follows the religion of Islam. Consequently, "Atheist Jew" (and "Buddhist Jew" and whatever) makes perfect sense, but "Atheist Muslim" or "Agnostic Muslim" doesn't, any more than "Atheist Christian" would.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[TheMiddleRoad]

The Germans elected Hitler and his party. How did that go? Being elected does not give a government legitimacy; it just helps. Since Hamas was at war with Fatah at the time, with shootings and dropping people off the tops of buildings, the election could be considered "irregular" by anyone.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[ultranova]

But it does highlight an underlying problem: When one person believes it is their religious/social/political duty to forcefully violate the freedom of another... then, unavoidably, *someone* will get their freedom removed. It just cannot be helped.

But it can be solved, in fact quite easily: Would you object to me doing something to you in the name of my ideology/religion? If yes, then you may not do it to others either. And if something were done to you by someone else, would you accept me simply watching and doing nothing about it? If no, then you must interfere too.

Or, in other words: we can all be equal, or I can be your master. Which will it be?

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[__aaqvdr516]

Blasphemer! You can't say goddamned like that! Oh no, now I've said goddamned. Oh no! I've said it again. Ahem...No one, is to stone anyone, until I blow this whistle...Even if they do say Jehovah.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. Just this afternoon I sat down and had a local microbrewery beer (Taybeh) in a very fashionable looking bar in Ramallah with two guys from Muslim backgrounds. Gaza is a very different place to here.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[chrb]

If you go around saying judaism is fake, absolutely nothing is going to happen to you. Well, some people may be pissed off, but that's it.

Morgan Spurlock got attacked for less than that. He was just asking questions - no criticism of Judaism, just trying to interview people on the street....

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[chrb]

Also see Unreported World: The Battle for Israel's Soul

It seems there are plenty of fundamentalists on both sides who don't want peaceful coexistence.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Germans elected Hitler and his party.

A common misused example, through an (understandable) ignorance of how the German government at the time was run. A plurality elected the party, the party selects its own leader (Hitler - who, by the way, removed his internal rivals by force), then the chancellor *appointed* Hitler as his successor, then Hitler essentially banned all the other parties. By the time the people elected Hitler in the sense that we normally used the word 'election' today, the entire thing was a sham. (By modern standards, even the earlier election that put his party's coalition in power was dubious. Brownshirts running around beating people).

To make a modern equivalent, it'd be like what has happened in the past few years in the US, if we extend it in a certain direction. The people elected Obama. Then, in the House, the People elected Republicans in general. Once the newly elected Representatives are sworn in, the current House minority leader will become the Speaker of the House. If Obama and Biden were murdered, resigned, or were rendered unfit to lead by illness, who is President? Boehner. Who was only elected by one district of one state. (Or if it were to happen today, it'd be Pelosi). It's fair to say he was elected, but would be a gross twisting of the truth to say he was elected President or to say that he was elected by the American People. By the way, this has already happened before: President Gerald Ford was never elected Vice President or President.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[EnsilZah]

You'll notice they attack the cops as well.
This is taking place in a part of Jerusalem called Mea Shearim, populated by ultra orthodox Jews that don't acknowledge the state of Israel, burn trash containers and spit or worse on passers by when something is not to their liking.
It's a pretty unique place in that regard and is not indicative of any pretty much any other place in Israel.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[russotto]

Israel trails Kuwait (ranked 60th), Lebanon (ranked 61st) and UAE (ranked 86th) in its region.

Wait, no it doesn't. Israel is ranked 71st, Kuwait 115th, Lebanon 118, and the UAE 153. Guinea-Bissau is at 107 and Qatar at 143. Israel, while rated only "Partly free", is still by far the freest in its region (24 points above Kuwait) according to your own source.

If we look at the 2010 tables, Israel has moved back into the "Free" category.
2010 middle east charts

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[sourcerror]

Is the gay pride still banned?

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[metrix007]

Can't believe this got modded troll when it is correct, and the people pointing out it is correct get modded troll.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[arth1]

No, they don't. Members of a recognized religion that backs them on it can opt out of the "true faith" and "so help me God" parts.
Unfortunately, there's no such provisions for atheists or people with a faith not belonging to a recognized religion.
Which is why I, after living here for a generation, cannot become a US citizen. Yes, it's religious intolerance.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[arth1]

It's only optional if you belong to an organized religion.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

But of course, Israel is the evil fascist empire that is oppressing the poor, innocent Egyptia..Jordani, Lebanese...oh wait, "Palestinians." And the poor Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian...er..."Palestinian" freedom fighters...they're just a poor, innocent enslave minority.

Anti-Israeli brainwashing makes me sick.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you mean by "gay pride" - if you mean gay pride parades, they weren't banned and aren't banned. There was a controversy about having the parade specifically in Jerusalem, because of its special status and big religious community there (imagine gay pride parade in Vatican), but at the end it still happened. Some people were extremely pissed off, there were protests etc., but no "banning".

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Paradise Pete]

So yes you're missing something, you have a hate-on for Israel.

How in the world do you read that into what I wrote? You're wrong, but that's not the point. It's simply not present in my post.

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[blackraven14250]

The interpretation of the meaning of "Jew" is heavily dependent on the population of people you're talking to. Many here in my local area are culturally Jewish but not so much religious, while people in a nearby town take the meaning to be religious.

In essence, different people have different conceptions of the meaning of "Jew".

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[Smiths]

This is not some one off lunatic. At best, half of Israel shares his views.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/israeli-state-violence-and-the-value-of-palestinian-life.html

Lets not forget, Zionism itself is a cult...

'lets all emigrate to a place based on the bible.' Come on. Add to that the obsession with the Holocaust and a million Russians immigrants who don't have tradition European liberalism to at least feel sympathy for the Palestinians..and you have modern day Israel...which is not a pretty picture.

Even if some of those people

http://maxblumenthal.com/feeling-the-hate-in-jerusalem/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWha0aMGIlQ&feature=player_embedded

Re:Isn't freedom great?

[mikechant]

Unfortunately, there's no such provisions for atheists or people with a faith not belonging to a recognized religion.

It's not ideal, but I would take at face value the fact that 'God' is not defined anywhere in the oath, so you can take it as meaning 'The Laws of Physics' or something, which is pretty close to God in the particular sense of the 'First Cause'. Some religions do have an idea of 'God' which is pretty close to this.

Or you could keep your fingers crossed while reciting the oath. I hear that works pretty well :)

No religious freedom is hard over there...

[kixome]

Oh wait, I forgot we don't have religious freedom in aMERICa, as evident by all the recent protests against Mosques being built here. This issue affects my home town of Murfreesboro, TN. I am agnostic, so the religious freedoms don't affect me, however we will soon be just as closed of a society if we allow them to keep removing our freedoms. When will gays be allowed to be gay without any persecution. The same goes for Muslims. When will they be allowed to be themselves in any country?

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[iceperson]

Wait, so you're saying there's no religious freedom here because religious people are free protest other religions?

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't read too much into it...he's really just ranting.

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[Professr3]

Protests are part of our right to free speech - if all Hamas was doing was protesting other religions, we wouldn't be having a problem.

Religious freedom is still strong in America, and, thankfully, tolerance is starting to be a part of our children's upbringing. Openly gay people walk down the street now, where thirty years ago they wouldn't have dared to admit their orientation. Racism today is nothing compared to what it was for the previous generation, and the internet's beginning to help bring us all together in a global climate of mutual understanding.

However, religious freedom doesn't mean you're free to infringe upon other people's rights. This affects the strict practice of Islam - Sharia law is completely at odds with personal freedom and our country's legal system, as is the murder or forced conversion of those they consider to be infidels. If Muslims can live without Sharia law or violence towards others, then of course they can be themselves in our country. Something tells me they're not going to do that.

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[wizardforce]

I am agnostic, so the religious freedoms don't affect me

how so? shouldn't you have the right not to be forced to believe whatever religion is the fad? the freedom to worship also means the freedom not to be forced to do so.

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[Anonymous Coward]

When will gays be allowed to be gay without any persecution. The same goes for Muslims. When will they be allowed to be themselves in any country?

If you let some of the Muslims be Muslims the way that they want to be Muslims then gays won't be able to to be gay without being persecuted.

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[thegrassyknowl]

I am agnostic, so the religious freedoms don't affect me

Oh, but they do. If the white Christian lunatics (the very same ones who protest about mosques) in the US got their way you wouldn't be allowed to be agnostic. Don't think for a minute that an explicitly noted right to religious freedom doesn't affect you; it is the very underpinning of your being allowed to be agnostic (undecided - since, in the context of your post it sounded like you meant atheist).

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[Gordonjcp]

If you let some of the Muslims be Muslims the way that they want to be Muslims then gays won't be able to to be gay without being persecuted.

That's true of a rather higher percentage of Christians, though. If you let even a handful of the Christians be Christians the way that they want to be, then no-one will be able to anything without being persecuted. Extremist Christians are even scarier than Extremist Muslims. For one thing, they have better guns, and more of them.

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Religious freedom is still strong in America, and, thankfully, tolerance is starting to be a part of our children's upbringing. Openly gay people walk down the street now, where thirty years ago they wouldn't have dared to admit their orientation. Racism today is nothing compared to what it was for the previous generation, and the internet's beginning to help bring us all together in a global climate of mutual understanding.

Sorry, we still have a long way to go concerning what most would call 'reverse discrimination.' The activist groups that have gained political acceptance don't seem to care much for equality for those on the otherside of their fences. I will leave it to you to decide which groups. It shouldnt be hard to figure out.

However, religious freedom doesn't mean you're free to infringe upon other people's rights.

Agreed, except for the fact that people nowadays think one of their freedoms is to not be insulted/challenged by someone with differing views. People like this vote...usually for left and right wing candidates that support government encroachment for the sake of their feelings.

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[Smiths]

"our" country?

Something tells me "they're" not going to do that.?

Again, only Americans could invade two countries, kill over 150K people, yet still have the....ignorance(?) to lecture the people from the same religion they've just killed on "personal freedom and our country's legal system"

I hope for your own sakes. One day you turn off your TV. Stop reading the newspapers...and just think...for yourself. Don't just repeat the Op-Ed, don't take the same position as the pudit on TV...heck maybe you could even go a visit some of these countries, meet some muslims before you take this high and mighty opinions on a culture you have no experience outside of television with.

Just MO

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[SuricouRaven]

Ignoring it's current state, throughout it's history the US has probably done more to advance individual freedom and legally protected universial rights than any other country. France comes close.

Re:No religious freedom is hard over there...

[sourcerror]

That's why they're called protestants.

hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again Islam has proven itself to be a religion of peace that teaches tolerance and acceptance.

And they have the audacity to question the ridicule at their expense in the civilized west.

Re:hooray!

[wizardforce]

any ideology that ties its self to government will screw the people. it doesn't matter if it is islam or christianity or batshit political ideologies... the results are generally the same.

It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[blind biker]

This is not an issue specific to PA territories: in any islamic country you would be screwed if you logged in to Facebook as God and criticized islam. The same would have happened in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey etc. Sadly, the problem is with islamism (and maybe with islam).

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

Screwed by whom? Is this where that part about the 72 virgins comes in?

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[glwtta]

Sadly, the problem is with islamism (and maybe with islam).

The problem is with theocratic governments, it doesn't matter in the least what the actual religion is.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[MoonBuggy]

It's not the particular religion that's the issue, it's the development level of the countries. I'm too lazy to elucidate the whole argument right now, but in a nutshell: look at the extreme forms of Christianity practised by some in Africa.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly -- it's not the religion itself, they're all potentially (eventually? inevitably?) counterproductive. The problem is with the uneducated, dogmatic interpretations of religious beliefs in general. Religion got us through some rough times as a species way in the past, but its time is -done-. No need for it any more. If you don't think so, consider for a moment that the Dark Ages lasted about -400 years-. Imagine where we'd be today if we hadn't thrown out all of Greek thought on science and nature and kept building, uninterrupted, from where they left off! Half of us would probably be typing this from Mars right now, to the old colonies on Earth...

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine where we'd be today if we hadn't thrown out all of Greek thought on science and nature and kept building, uninterrupted, from where they left off, instead of relying on the Muslims to preserve it for us while we went round burning alive anyone who expressed original thinking! Half of us would probably be typing this from Mars right now, to the old colonies on Earth... And kids would never have to study "algebra" in school...

TFTFY.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Animats]

The same would have happened in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey etc.

Turkey, no; Turkey's government is officially secular. Indonesia, quite possibly, depending on the province. Syria, probably, although it matters whether the person saying it is Islamic, and there are multiple court systems. Saudi Arabia, definitely yes.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[TapeCutter]

Do you really think that the secular democracies in Indonesia and Turkey are in the same extremist basket as the Saudi kingdom and Syrian dictatorship?

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[shutdown -p now]

The problem is with theocratic governments, it doesn't matter in the least what the actual religion is.

Sure it does. When the religion has a set of laws that are supposed to be divine and therefore immutable, and said laws prescribe various gruesome forms of corporal punishment and execution, the problem is with the religion. Spain under Franco also had a very real state church, but they didn't stone people to death for adultery.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[shutdown -p now]

It's not the particular religion that's the issue, it's the development level of the countries. I'm too lazy to elucidate the whole argument right now, but in a nutshell: look at the extreme forms of Christianity practised by some in Africa.

And yet the development level of Saudi Arabia - one of the strictest practitioners of Sharia in its most extreme, literalist forms - is way above many Latin American countries, for example; and yet the latter do not stone people to death for homosexuality, or amputate hands and feet for theft. Ditto for Iran.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

Apparently you're also too lazy to educate yourself on Christianity in Africa as well. I live in Mozambique, have lived in Botswana, Angola, Namibia and South Africa and traveled extensively to all of their neighbors. I can tell you that nowhere in (at least southern and east) Africa is there Christian oppression like this. There are many many people who are critical of Christianity in all of those southern African countries and there are no consequences like this in the least. Sure all of these countries have their problems but nothing in this vein.
Honestly, the only time you'll run into religious oppression like this is from muslim communities. Mozambique has a large muslim population (especially the north of the country) and there are many people who are oppressed because of their decisions to leave islam there.
I think islam has specific tendencies that lead to specific abuses. I think christianity has specific tendencies that lead to specific abuses. They often overlap but in this area they don't. At the core of each religion, neither promotes these tendencies or abuses. Yet because people get corrupt and are power-hungry you get wild derivations from central ideas in a religion. For example, for some reason, christian leaders who get large followings, often end up taking advantage financially of their followers who come looking for a blessing of some kind (healing, personal financial blessing, etc.) and I've never seen that in islam. Islam, by contrast, when embraced at a government level tends to overbear followers and suppress voluntary belief or non-belief. Neither religion teaches these things in their basics yet men (usually not women) who end up in religious leadership often abuse those they lead.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[bmo]

Sadly, the problem is with islamism (and maybe with islam).

No, the problem is with god botherers in general.

You forgot to include Ireland up there in your list. You can be fined 25,000 euros if you renounce the Sacraments, etc.

Here in the States, there are people clamoring to bring our country into some sort of religious theocratic throwback to the 12'th century. Some of them even sponsor "prayer breakfasts" for our esteemed legislators.

Google "Dominionism" and "The Family" (The so-called "Christian" group that incited Uganda to kill gays), Focus on the Family, Christian Coalition, etc.

Talibanistic fundamentalism is only just below the surface just about everywhere. It only takes a little bit of tipping the table to have it spring full force to the surface.

--
BMO

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe 'development level' should be extended to encompass such barbaric practices as stoning and amputations. Those Latin American countries are way more 'developed' than the extreme Muslim states -- which should, to my mind, be accorded a 'development level' of less than zero.

These theocracies are truly utterly despicable and should be opposed with any and all means at our disposal.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[brit74]

The problem is with theocratic governments, it doesn't matter in the least what the actual religion is.

You know that Islam doesn't recognize the separation of church and state, don't you? In the early years, the entire domain of Islam was ruled by a caliphate, which is essentially the pope and king rolled into one. I'm afraid that Islamic areas are always going to run into this problem because of the bad precedent set early in Islam's history - when church and state were one entity, and presumably, that's the way "God wanted it". The only hope is that people become so modernized that they stop caring about trying to recreate the imaginary golden-age of Islam.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[brit74]

I'm guessing he was talking about "The Lord's Resistance Army" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army) and the current oppression of homosexuals in Uganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/20/ugandan-embassy-defends-equal-rights-gay-list-appears-newspaper/

The current furor over homosexuality has been fueled by talks given by American Evangelicals there: "The bill was introduced several months after a visit by several American evangelicals, who spoke at a conference called the "Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda." One of them was Scott Lively, a pastor from Springfield, MA, who believes that countries like Uganda can still protect themselves from what he sees as the scourge of the gay agenda. "These are good Christians; better Christians than there are here in the states," says Lively. "They care about each other. And I think the reason they're pushing so hard on this law is that they don't want to see what happened to our country happen over there."
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/anti-homosexuality-bill-uganda-global-uproar/story?id=10045436

There's also the continuing problem of naming witches:
"African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[shutdown -p now]

I believe 'development level' should be extended to encompass such barbaric practices as stoning and amputations.

Then the proposed chain of cause and effect is in fact circular, since GGP claimed that the "barbaric practices" are the outcome of development level.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[nystire]

Actually Turkey's government is starting to become far more openly religious, as seen in the results of their latest referendums. The people there are voting more and more to allow religion to affect the rulings of the government.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

you are mistaken, the koran specifically encourages this kind of behaviour, if you ever bother to read the koran, dont, its a boring read, even by the standard of religious texts. anyway, it clear states that anyone that knows the teachings of god and turns their back on it, should be killed, its in the first book of the koran

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[NeutronCowboy]

But Spain under King Ferdinand of Aragorn executed people for heresy. Wasn't even all that long ago. So no, the religion really doesn't matter that much. What matters is the people practicing that religion.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Smiths]

The crime rate in America is higher than any other developed nation on earth, certainly any muslim country. We, the US also distribute and have more weapons than any nation on earth.

As far as killing people for idealogy, consider we killed 3 MILLION people in Vietnam because they didnt view property and free markets the way we wanted them to.

Who has the violent culture, really? Muslims? nah.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is with theocratic governments, it doesn't matter in the least what the actual religion is.

It's not the governments that are the root of the problem, it's the type of religion. Theocentric, authoritarian religions lead to this kind of intolerance, hatred and oppression.

In countries with supposedly secular governments, there are still religious (Christian, Muslim or Jewish, doesn't really matter) lobby groups that try to impose their beliefs and values on others; under penalty of law.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Microlith]

The development level of Saudi Arabia is basically an illusion, and reserved only for the very small rich upper class and the royal family. Everyone else is basically stuck with the rest of the middle east and Africa.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello retard, Syria is also secular.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[SuricouRaven]

Saudi Arabia has an unfair advantage, though. It posesses a natural resource which assures it of vast, easy wealth that requires next to no social advancement: Oil.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

By extreme basket case you mean the Syrian government which just ban the burkah?

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=syria-bans-full-islamic-face-veils-at-universities-2010-07-20

As opposed to the US government which allows book burnings etc. etc.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[shutdown -p now]

But Spain under King Ferdinand of Aragorn executed people for heresy. Wasn't even all that long ago. So no, the religion really doesn't matter that much.

Some religions are more flexible than others. Christianity particularly so, due to the large volume of its sacred texts, and the large number of minutiae and inherent contradictions therein. There's no way you can take it all as given - you'll have to pick and choose which is "allegoric" and which isn't. Even then you end up with outright mind-fucking concepts such as Trinity - a very basic, fundamental concept in Christianity. Grokking that alone that takes a fair amount of mental gymnastics!

And that's why even the major Christian denominations have changed so much over the centuries, not to mention all the various spin-offs.

Islam is far more rigid. It does have its own share of debated points, but there are far fewer, and especially few when it comes to all those laws which we deem "barbaric". Of course, as with any abstract construct, it is quite possible to create a true "religion of peace" on that basis. It's just that the amount of weaseling involved is very large, and Muslims are less used to this kind of sophistry than Christians due to the core of their religion being much simpler. Hence why liberal Islam is comparatively more marginalized, and why ostensibly liberal Muslim countries - such as Turkey - are unstable in that regard, and have to be carefully maintained in that state.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[shutdown -p now]

The "rest of Middle East" is a pretty diverse scale, though! Egypt is there, and so is Iran, and so is Turkey - and those are quite different between each other.

But, fine. What would you say about Iran, then? In terms of quality of life, it's surprisingly decent.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[makomk]

You know that Islam doesn't recognize the separation of church and state, don't you?

Neither do mainstream forms of Judaism, and a lot of really influential branches of Christianity in the US - especially the fundamentalist ones - don't either. In practice, this manifests itself as the incorporation of large chunks of Jewish religious law into state law in Israel and systematic, organised attempts to create a religious state in the US by powerful groups linked to the Republican party.

Actually, what's odd about Islam is that Muslims, like Christians, are generally supposed to recognise and obey the laws of the state. (What's even weirder is that in theory Jews aren't meant to recognise the laws or courts of non-Jewish states in which they reside. In practice this is generally ignored, with the odd exception. For example, the reason that sharia courts are legal here in the UK is because of a law created to allow the establishment of Jewish religious courts. The reason we can't change the law to stop sharia courts is because the Jewish population will kick up a fuss, not the Muslims.)

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[makomk]

Hmmm. Lost a sentence in editing. That was supposed to read: "Actually, what's odd about Islam is that Muslims, like Christians, are generally supposed to recognise and obey the laws of the state. Of course, religious fundamentalists of all stripes tend to ignore this."

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[mr100percent]

Development in that case isn't an issue, a poor democracy like India is probably much fairer than a rich monarchy dictatorship like Saudi Arabia. Don't judge religion on that basis when there are other variables. I don't see Muslims in Senegal or Malaysia or Bangladesh acting that way.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[mr100percent]

How about Uganda, which is pushing in a bill that makes homosexuality a capital crime? Also, they have the (Christian?) Lord's Resistance Army.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

I absolutely agree (and acknowledged in my previous post) that there are abuses in the christian church, including the christian church in Africa. The ones you linked to are great examples. None of them, however, are the kind of abuse that the TFA is about and that is my point. It is generally not a widespread problem (in Africa at least) for someone to leave the christian church or be critical of it. People do it often and there are no repercussions, ESPECIALLY government ones, despite prominent government leaders claiming to be christians. There are innumerable other problems in the African christian church but this does not tend to be one of them. It seems islam is unique in this issue. That's all I was trying to say.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[ChrisMaple]

A large part of the crime rate in the US is due to repressive drug laws, which cause drug arrests directly, and violence and theft arrests indirectly. Absent that, the rate would probably still be high, but perhaps not the worst.

With regard to Vietnam, two things: Vietnam was fought mostly defensively. The killing rate increased sharply not long after we left, until all detected anticommunists were dead.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[TapeCutter]

No I mean the un-elected military junta that declared "emergency law" and suspended the Syrian constitution in 1963.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Stultsinator]

Governments don't exist in a vacuum. A Theocratic government wouldn't exist without people wishing to be governed by a Theocracy. So I think your most immediate issue is with the desires of the Palestinian people.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[h4rr4r]

You could do that in Turkey, they are not an Islamic country, they are a secular state.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[h4rr4r]

You do know that once upon a time the pope crowned the king right? He was a literal king-maker. Everything you said about Islam is pretty much true for Christianity at one time.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[h4rr4r]

Yes, they manage to have a couple rich folks and a huge poverty class. They use religious extremism to make this seem normal, amazing what an authoritarian state can do. Is that not what you meant?

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[h4rr4r]

Iran is state that would be our buddies if not for our own stupid mistakes and our being in bed with Saudi Arabia.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[ultranova]

Saudi Arabia has an unfair advantage, though. It posesses a natural resource which assures it of vast, easy wealth that requires next to no social advancement: Oil.

Oil is a disadvantage to Saudi-Arabia and the rest of the Middle-East. It lets the ruling class get plenty of wealth with little to no development, and causes outsiders to meddle in their affairs to keep them firmly in a medieval dictatorship stage - and even that might be too generous a term for it, for medieval dictatorships were, in fact, sustainable without outside assistance.

Once the oil runs out, shit will hit the fan; but after it has, Middle-East will finally be able to progress.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[ultranova]

You forgot to include Ireland up there in your list. You can be fined 25,000 euros if you renounce the Sacraments, etc.

Can or will? Because there are plenty of countries with old laws still in books since nobody has had time to clean them out, yet they are no longer enforced and are thus, for all practical purposes, overturned. For example, according to this website, it's illegal to have sex with a virgin in Washington State.

Here in the States, there are people clamoring to bring our country into some sort of religious theocratic throwback to the 12'th century. Some of them even sponsor "prayer breakfasts" for our esteemed legislators.

You have 300 million people over there, so of course there are a few lunatics in such a large crowd. The real question is: Are they succeeding? Doesn't seem so to me.

Talibanistic fundamentalism is only just below the surface just about everywhere. It only takes a little bit of tipping the table to have it spring full force to the surface.

No, Talibanistic fundamentalism is not "just below the surface" everywhere. Loud-mouthed assholes, on the other hand, are doing their best to make their home countries seem like fundamentalistic hellholes everywhere.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a religion you DIDN'T just describe?

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Xyrus]

The problem isn't religions or governments. The problem is people. If you have sociopathic, egotistical, power whores in positions to make or influence policy then he/she could believe stuffing rocks in a rhinoceros's ass will bring eternal life for all it matters. People acting in their own self-interest at the expense of others and society as a whole are what the problem is. Religion just happens to be one of the more convenient tools to use on poor uneducated masses, mainly because they know nothing else. "Religious" leaders are still leaders, and if they talk a good game then those who don't know better will follow.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[bmo]

Because there are plenty of countries with old laws still in books since nobody has had time to clean them out,

No, actually, it's not a new law. The last time this blasphemy law in Ireland was updated was in the last year.

Are they succeeding? Doesn't seem so to me.

No, they aren't succeeding, they are SIMPLY HOLDING PRAYER BREAKFASTS ATTENDED BY EVERY PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 40 YEARS. Yes, the same people who encouraged Uganda to "Kill the faggots" hold fucking prayer breakfasts for the politicians they have the ears of. And then they go on to lobby them. Some even help various senators and reps with housing by giving them cut-rate apartments.

No, Talibanistic fundamentalism is not "just below the surface" everywhere.

Go look up C Street.

Really. You need a fucking education.

--
BMO

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[bmo]

>No, actually, it's not a new law.

new should be old.

--
BMO

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, USA is almost as bad as assorted Muslim states, but for different reasons. Why can't every nation on this planet be more like, for example, Denmark? I know I'd move there like a shot if I had the opportunity to do so.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't in the 50's. Its amazing what trillions of dollars in oil money will do. And if you want to make comparisons to south american oil money you are off by 2 orders of magnitude. Also go out in the desert and see how the Bedouins live, then get back to me on development. Development my ass. Seriously, have you been to Honduras or panama lately. There are plenty of nice places with cheap food and beautiful women, and you don't have to worry about getting your head cut off if you have a beer with your dinner. I used to go to villages in SA to watch executions and people having hands chopped off on weekends. It is like the middle ages there. Really you have no idea.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Dragon Bait]

And yet the development level of Saudi Arabia - one of the strictest practitioners of Sharia in its most extreme, literalist forms - is way above many Latin American countries

Amazing what oil money will buy, isn't it?

What's your tag line? Paraphrasing: I like money, with it I buy civilization.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Dragon Bait]

At the core of each religion, neither promotes these tendencies or abuses.

Really? Have you read Qur'an 4:89

They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Or Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."

While the founder of one religion talked about "turn the other cheek" and having a "kingdom in heaven" the other took up the sword, preached violence and established a kingdom on earth.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[chrb]

You know that Islam doesn't recognize the separation of church and state, don't you?

The separation of Church and state that you are familiar with is a result of the United States constitution. It is certainly not required by Christianity, and until relatively recently most European nations were under the control of the Church. Even the Kings of England, historically resistant against Catholicism, once sworn loyalty to the Pope.

I'm afraid that Islamic areas are always going to run into this problem because of the bad precedent set early in Islam's history - when church and state were one entity, and presumably, that's the way "God wanted it".

The power of the Catholic Church was essentially unchallenged on mainland Europe for the better part of two millennia. Wars were waged in the name of the Church, resulting in the deaths of millions. New branches of Christianity that threatened the power of the Church were decried as heresies and brutally suppressed, with entire cities being slaughtered ( "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." ). Before you are so critical of others, you might want to remember the phrase: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[u38cg]

Doesn't sound so different to the Holy Roman Empire to me.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[shutdown -p now]

I don't see Muslims in Senegal or Malaysia or Bangladesh acting that way.

Do you know that in most of Malaysia apostasy (from Islam, of course) is a crime at worst, and a major hindrance at best? That preaching other religions to Muslims is prohibited? That there is severe censorship of blasphemy? Yeah, they don't stone people yet, but I don't consider it a particularly good example of "good Islam" in action.

Bangladesh is quite okay for a Muslim state, though I'd put it to its history (it was more repressive when part of Pakistan). Even so it has blasphemy laws which are enforced, and books are banned over it. Ironically, some of the same books are also banned in India - and guess who initiated the ban?..

Senegal, now that's a good example of reasonably peaceful Islam. One interesting thing of note about Senegal, however, is that it is dominated by Sufism, which generally shies away from overly literal interpretation of Islamic tradition, and likes to seek inner meanings, allegorical interpretations, and so on. Once you have that approach, getting liberal Islam is that much easier - much like it was with Christianity.

Indeed, this happened once before in an even more extreme way - how about an Islamic nonviolence movement? In mid-19th century? That's mighty impressive if you ask me, and way in advance of most non-Islamic states of the time. A pity it was short-lived. But note how the guy who preached it was also a Sufi (and, indeed, turned Chechnya into Sufi-majority country which it remains to this day, even though the non-violence component died out).

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[shutdown -p now]

Is there a religion you DIDN'T just describe?

Can you point out at the prescription of corporal punishment in Buddhism? Taoism?

With Christianity it depends on interpretation. The whole thing is an entangled mess of contradictory statements, and, depending on which ones you pick, you can end up with something just as cruel as Islam, or something that's all love and flowers. As evidenced by the variety of Christian denominations out there today and over the years.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[martas]

i see your point about the evidence suggesting there's some underlying difference between christianity and islam, which leads to different kinds of corruption. i wonder how true that is, though. i don't have a lot of knowledge on this matter, but it is my understanding that for a long period of time during the middle ages, christianity was turned into a tool of oppression much like islam is today in many places. i wonder if the difference isn't purely cultural... or, perhaps, a combination of cultural factors, and the greater ease with which violence can be justified through islam (which is another claim i have no proof of, but have heard often, and don't find hard to believe - AFAIK, muhamed, being a warrior in many ways, often stated that violence can be justified).

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither Indonesia nor Turkey are theocratic states. But they are filled with Muslims.

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[sourcerror]

"You know that Islam doesn't recognize the separation of church and state, don't you? In the early years, the entire domain of Islam was ruled by a caliphate, which is essentially the pope and king rolled into one. "

It's not unheard of Christianity either. Ever heard of the Papal State?

"The second major time period runs roughly from the 4th Century until the Kingdom of Italy seized Church lands in 1870. The Middle Ages saw the papacy reach its height of power, consolidating and unifying the churches of Western Europe, and expanding its territories, known as the Papal States. However, it also witnessed the Great Schism, which permanently divided the Church, East and West, Byzantine and Catholic, and then again, the Protestant Reformation, which directly challenged the authority of the papacy. At the end of this time period, the Papal states were taken away from the Vatican."
from WIkipedia

Re:It's not just in the Palestinian territories

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice bigot talk.
My mother is a muslym, my father a christian orthodox and i am an atheist. Mixed marriages are nor where i live, balcans. My mother paints in red eggs for easter for my father, and he, or other chatolic/orthodox believers follow muslym recurrences.
Oh, BTW, during WW2, a lot of jewish came, and got hidden from nazis/fashist by muslyms who risked their life and their family people lifes to protect them.
While we are on it, people from this same place (muslym mostly) are in afganistan and iraq fighting together with US.
Just sharing some direct knowledge, mind you.

Ah, the problem IMO is people like you. Read your damn god's^Wfantasy book instead of telling bullshit.

(Posting as AC as it's not my computer)

There's a saying...

[katz]

Those who want peace with others must first make peace with themselves.

Re:There's a saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess America's out this round.

Re:There's a saying...

[Smiths]

Really? Where did you get that standard?

So International laws only apply after you make peace with yourself? Israel doesnt have to define its borders, can control 4 million refugees lives in every respect without giving them any rights, though they have to obey the Israeli (thats called aparthied btw) all because the Palestenians haven't according to you made peace with themselves?

I can assure you have a lot to learn about Palestine. Seriously, start here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDgiE9aRmBo

Re:There's a saying...

[katz]

Dude, honestly? Given that kids there grow up watching a rabbit puppet wax enthusiastic about eating Jews[1] and a Mickey Mouse-alike raving about martyrdom on the phone with kids[2], then it's quite obvious Palestinians do not give a crap about their children.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8w7_P8wZ0&feature=related
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6lbFGC4&feature=related

Re:There's a saying...

[katz]

Palestinians can't even handle interactions among themselves peacefully when they're busy throwing rival politicians off roofs[1] in Gaza and viciously beating their own civilians[2].

1. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c67_1188887407 (Not safe for work.)
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND9CDzsxzTk

Re:There's a saying...

[Smiths]

We used to say the same things about the Native Americans. They were savages! Thats why we killed them.

And the Africans, I mean come on they're not civilized, of course they don't have human feelings for their children.

Don't let that feeling of racial superiority go to head too much, eventually you're going to have to give it up. The only difference between you and them is, you have more guns.

Re:There's a saying...

[makomk]

Palestinians can't even handle interactions among themselves peacefully when they're busy throwing rival politicians off roofs[1] in Gaza and viciously beating their own civilians[2].

If that surprises you, them you obviously haven't looked at (for example) just what the IRA got up to during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. We're only just starting to track down a decent number of the corpses of civilians who were taken from their homes by IRA hit squads never to be seen from again. Then there's the kneecappings and the extortion and the general organised crime. Fraternising with members of the wrong Christian sect was very bad and often fatal idea. The IRA, at their peak, made Hamas and co look positively pleasant - and their equivalents on the Unionist side weren't exactly better.

Oh, and did I mention that US politicians have been protecting IRA members from being extradited for their own political advantage? The IRA had a lot of political and financial support within the US, and an awful lot of their weapons came from there IIRC.

Re:There's a saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of brainwashing is more common that people imagine, here's an example from Lebanon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBXCYEXxKXA

Re:There's a saying...

[ChrisMaple]

The case of American Indians is quite complex and modern enough to be well documented. Much like many modern programs of attack on a particular group, there were people seeking financial advantage (land speculators and gold seekers, etc.) and people motivated by hatred (Andrew Jackson, a favorite of many Americans, especially Democrats, is a prime example). Of course, many people were dupes, didn't care, or actually opposed the attacks. The fact that the Amerinds were not particularly advanced ("savages") was more of an excuse for ignoring their rights than a reason for killing them.

There were many different tribes of Indians and they didn't all behave alike. A few were aggressive, and many had a much lower value for human life (particularly for those who weren't a member of their own tribe) than we take for granted today. One tribe's attack on a peaceful settlement was used to besmirch all; a behavior both understandable and despicable.

Re:There's a saying...

[Smiths]

In both cases, a forgein people went to another land, established a colony, built settlements, then using sustained violence removed those people from the land...eventually the colony became a state and when the native people continued fought back they were branded terrorists and when they were killed it was rationalized that they were inferior barbarians with a primitive religion.

I have no doubt that in the future the case of Palestine will be looked on with Shame, the same as Jim Crow laws or the US's treatment of Native Americans is by todays generation. 'how did they allow that to happen?"

There is no excuse for it, except misinformation and a failure of Americans to provide a consistent respect for human rights and law.

Re:There's a saying...

[Mashiki]

Yeah let me know how those 6 wars of attempted extermination against jews worked out for you.

Re:There's a saying...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

This TV station is the greatest western psyops coup of all time.

Re:There's a saying...

[Smiths]

every war but one was intiated by Israel...try reading Israeli newspapers you'll get some truth...

and lets stop with the "extermination against jews" troupes , the Palestenians are the victims in this. full stop.

Re:There's a saying...

[Smiths]

Remember that scene in Back to the Future when they shot the professor. Remember who shot him? Libyans.

"Run for it Marty...Its the Libyans!!"

haha

Watch this video. Its good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1ZNEjEarw

By Jackie Salloum. http://www.jsalloum.org/videos.html

Official selection of the Sundance Film Festival 2005

A trailer-esque montage spectacle of Hollywood's relentless vilification and dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims.
Inspired by the book
"Reel Bad Arabs"
by Dr. Jack Shaheen

Out of 1000 films that have Arab & Muslim characters (from the year 1896 to 2000)
12 were postive depictions, 52 were even handed and the rest of the 90O and so were negative.

Re:There's a saying...

[geekoid]

Wrong. And your ignorance is a common problem when dealing with these people.

These people are for their children, thats why they do it. They think it gets their children into paradise.

They think people want to take the opportunity for their kids t get into heaven for them. A mind set that is starting to infect America and England.

This is Israel's fault...

[Anonymous Coward]

...somehow.

It seems strange that so many Western liberals identify with the Palestinian activist movement, given how illiberal Hamas (and Islam in general) is. Israel has done some reprehensible things, too, of course (cf. Mordechai Vanunu), but their track record is still an awful lot better.

Re:This is Israel's fault...

[Smiths]

read up on Palestine and You will understand.

Joe Sacco has two very good (comic) books about Palestine. Check em out.

Oh hey...

[blackdew]

Supporting terrorists as our government might have been a bad idea after all... who could have known?

Re:Oh hey...

[shutdown -p now]

Supporting terrorists as our government might have been a bad idea after all... who could have known?

Bad idea? The locals seem to be quite rejoiced at the thought of this little witch hunt. From TFA:

Many in this conservative Muslim town say that isn't enough, and suggested he should be killed for renouncing Islam. Even family members say he should remain behind bars for life.
"He should be burned to death," said Abdul-Latif Dahoud, a 35-year-old Qalqiliya resident. The execution should take place in public "to be an example to others," he added.

When these folks elected Hamas, they knew full well what they were getting into. Keep that in mind next time Israeli steamrolls over the place after a bunch more missiles launched from there land in Israeli towns.

Re:Oh hey...

[dcollins]

Of course... the locals aren't allowed to say otherwise, now are they?

Re:Oh hey...

[Reservoir Penguin]

It says right there on top of the FA - QALQILIYA, West Bank. They did not elect Hamas, that was in Gaza, in fact the whole point of the FA is how far the supposedly secular PA will go to prosecute the man.

Re:Oh hey...

[shutdown -p now]

Of course... the locals aren't allowed to say otherwise, now are they?

No, the locals are not required to form a torch wielding mob and demand burning the guy alive instead of imprisoning him as is already done.

Re:Oh hey...

[shutdown -p now]

Well, on Slashdot, only old people RTFA, and I don't qualify. I apologize for misinformation.

But thanks for clarifying. I'm glad that it's not that Islamist group which is imprisoning people for not believing in their superstitions, but rather the other one (Fatah, secular? haha).

Re:Oh hey...

[Smiths]

Yes, we should look away when Israel indiscrimnately kills civilians cause heck they elected Hamas...they deserve it.

Did you know that in the last 'war' on the gaza refugee camp 1,417 Palestinian were killed. Over 700 were women and children. 13 Israelis died too. You probably read about every one of the Israelis in full page stories in the NY Times, but those Arabs, they're just meaningless numbers to Americans. Theres no love lost for them.

Why don't you watch this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UxJWdCwOpc

Re:Oh hey...

[shutdown -p now]

Did you know that in the last 'war' on the gaza refugee camp 1,417 Palestinian were killed. Over 700 were women and children.

Two obvious questions.

First of all, how many of those killed were combatants? Note, "women and children" does not preclude such status - if you carry a gun and point it at me, neither your gender nor your age matters.

Second, and likely to be more important: of the remaining civilian deaths, how many are due to the usual Islamist tactic of using civilians as human shields - setting up missile launch sites and mortars in courtyards and on the roofs of of residential houses, schools, hospitals and mosques?

You probably read about every one of the Israelis in full page stories in the NY Times, but those Arabs, they're just meaningless numbers to Americans. Theres no love lost for them.

I'm not an American.

I pity any Palestinian civilian caught in the crossfire. But every time this conflict happens, the story repeats over and over again: one of the Palestinian militant organizations makes a strike at Israel (missiles, suicide bombing - doesn't matter), and Israel strikes back with all it's got. Since Israel is that much stronger, the end result is disproportional casualties for the Palestinians. This makes them underdogs, but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held responsible for starting the fight. I don't care about who's stronger and who's weaker. I care about who's wrong and who's right, and if the guy who's right is also stronger - well, that's just awesome.

And, in my book, repeated deliberate attacks specifically on civilian population with intent to cause maximum deaths marks you down as the bad guy right away, regardless of any other reasoning. Terrorism is terrorism.

Re:Oh hey...

[mr100percent]

So by that logic, America deserved another terrorist attack because they re-elected Bush? Collective punishment is never justified, even if the majority voted for criminals. Did 100% vote for Hamas?

Re:Oh hey...

[Smiths]

Its a pity you havent heard of this. There is a UN report done, done by a as respected and impartial authority Judge Richard Goldstone from South Africa.

It found evidence of numerous war crimes committed by Israel during the war on Gaza...Politics being what it is, he's been slandered and the report has not lead to anything actionable.

http://goldstonefacts.org/

Its fair to question things, but seriously its not nearly as one sided as you seem think.

When you say

And, in my book, repeated deliberate attacks
specifically on civilian population with intent to cause maximum deaths marks you down as the bad guy right away, regardless of any other reasoning. Terrorism is terrorism.

I hope you're referring to the 1400 Palestenains and not the 13 Israeli. You concede that those 1400 Palesteians werent all guilty of killing the Israelis...they were just civilians, guilty of Palestenians.

Here is a link that describes who attacked who first

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDBiycEz12s

Re:Oh hey...

[shutdown -p now]

I hope you're referring to the 1400 Palestenains and not the 13 Israeli. You concede that those 1400 Palesteians werent all guilty of killing the Israelis...they were just civilians, guilty of Palestenians.

I did not see Israelis lining up Palestinian civilians against the wall and shooting them. Or sending shell after shell into most densely populated regions of Gaza with no provocation (i.e. being shot at first).

I hope you're referring to the 1400 Palestenains and not the 13 Israeli. You concede that those 1400 Palesteians werent all guilty of killing the Israelis...they were just civilians, guilty of Palestenians.

Civilians dying in a war is bad, but there is no war without such a thing. The real question is whether civilians are deliberately targeted or not.

Here is a link that describes who attacked who first

Assuming that you mean the recent Gaza conflict, "who attacked who first" depends solely on where you draw the line at its beginning. If you do it at the November 4th incident, then you are deliberately ignoring the entire year of massive rocket strikes by Hamas that preceded it. Even during the claimed six-month ceasefire, there was still at least one such attack from Hamas side every month.

Re:Oh hey...

[shutdown -p now]

So by that logic, America deserved another terrorist attack because they re-elected Bush?

For re-electing Bush, no.

For Bush then starting wars... no, America does not deserve a terrorist attack, defined as an attack deliberately targeted primarily at civilians. But if the people attacked were to retaliate, striking at military targets, and civilians would happen to die in those strikes due to collateral damage - yes, that would have been justified.

Re:Oh hey...

[Reservoir Penguin]

No need to be sarcastic over giving you a little education. Now, do we need to argue about secular Arab socialism/nationalism movement and secular roots of Fatah? Of course US is bent on destroying secular Arab governments like Iraq and Syria and supporting crazy Saudi dictators. So even traditionally secular Arab populations are getting islamized and their leaders increasingly have to take it into account.

Re:Oh hey...

[sourcerror]

The Israel Defense Forces' chief rabbi told students in a pre-army yeshiva program last week that soldiers who "show mercy" toward the enemy in wartime will be "damned."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-chief-rabbi-troops-who-show-mercy-to-enemy-will-be-damned-1.4175

Re:Oh hey...

[indiechild]

That's a ridiculous thing to say. It's as ridiculous as saying that Americans, when they elected Bush, knew full well what they were getting into -- the biggest, most spectacular terrorist attack on their homeland. I see what you did there.

Re:Oh hey...

[randyleepublic]

So remind me again why is it is so earthshakingly important to have an Israeli homeland smack dab in the middle of the fucking Muslim world.  Why don't we take a nice chunk of the millions of acres of government land we have here and give it to the Israelis.  Free and clear, no issues.  Here's your new homeland.  Get the fuck out of the middle east. Let the Muslims fuck with each other - it's no longer our problem.

I mean, duh!

well i guess.....

[Anonymous Coward]

he should have been an anonymous coward

Palestinian Intelligence?

[dwave]

Oxymoron!

Another example of US myopia

[Smiths]

Meanwhile a family was evacuated from his house in Jerusalem where he lived for 30 years to make way for a settler family last week. A peaceful protest was broken up in Bil’in by tear gas and riot police.
Extremist settlers burned a Jerusalem church
Settlers spray graffiti on mosque in Nablus,
run over a man in Qalqiliya,
attack a teenager in Hebron
and the IDF assasinates two people in Gaza last week

but what do we read about that in the US? No, of course not. That would be too much reality for Americans. Instead we get a story about how those Hamas fiends are cracking down on the internet cafes. We get stories about bad the Iranians are to their women. Its as if they only perspective we get is one that shows us that these 'people' have a archaic, violent culture....ignore the 60 year occupation, ignore the two wars that US just launched over there, lets pick apart and find fault in THEIR culture. They're the violent people! Yeah right...

Theres a great film on You Tube called 'Planet of the Arab', check it out sometime.

http://mondoweiss.net/

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

"ignore the two wars that US just launched over there"

The US is in Iraq & Afghanistan. This atheist blogger incident took place in the West Bank. I feel like you're trying to be misleading when you deliberately confuse these two pieces of information or try to turn into a "West vs Arab" attack comment.

This isn't some childish game where both parties can erase their crimes by making longer lists of the other side's faults. If person A steals 5 cars, person B doesn't get a free pass to steal 4 cars and yell like a crazy person when they get caught and always trying to deflect attention to person A's crime. Both are guilty of what they have done wrong.

You seem to have forgotten this. And I feel like you're trying to deceive me.

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

Its unrealistic to expect sympathy from most Americans by whining about graffiti and some unlucky family losing their house when the over 2500 victims of 9/11 are still remembered. Its really hurts your cause going down this route. Try some other arguments.

Re:Another example of US myopia

[HertzaHaeon]

While I agree about the one-sidedness of news, in this specific case I think you're doing what many muslim governments are accused of doing — distracting people from a serious issue with another one. Internal atrocities are overshadowed by the atrocities of your enemy, real or imagined. Inform people about the other issues, fine, but not as a counterargument to this issue. It does neither of them justice.

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Smiths]

I am not trying decieve you.

re-read the comments...90% of them didn't comment on the West Bank..they went off about 'how Islam is dangerous and bad' and 'its not compatible with the West' blah, blah....

there is memme thats been building in the US, especially in the past year about how threatening Islam is to us! That doesnt stand up to scrunity of History..be in the far past or recent events.

It only serves to demonize the people we have gone or will go to war with...

Whether this is how America is going to collectively deal with the hangover from Iraq or whether its purposeful seeds being planted for a war with Iran....I dont know.

You should consider this whenever you read the news. Before it was the muslims it was Commies, then it was Yellow Peril, then it was remember the Maine and on and on....

Right now there is a poster in Times Square about Iran and how we shouldnt let them get a nuclear
weapon. Somebody paid a lot of money for that ad, yet they seemingly arent selling anything. Why? Whats in it for them?

Not to ramble, but when I see a story about how Hamas is abusing Palestenians, and I see the knee jerk reactions from people. I wonder what would be the reaction if 100X other stories I know happened there, that I read about on mondoweiss.net were more distributed? And how come I never see those stories outside of niche blogs? Why are the only stories the ones that make it to wider public ones that make the muslims seem barbaric?

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh FFS. The Western mainstream media agrees with you. It hates Israel. Drive them into the sea! Wir mussen die Juden ausrotten! etc.

But unlike your "niche blogs", the mainstream media is compelled to give some impression of impartiality, which is why it reports bad things about Hamas too. In your ideal world, maybe it would keep quiet about that, given that Hamas is all about world peace and Israel are the real terrorists(!?!)

Also, look, plenty of people agree with you. You're "Insightful", apparently. So maybe things aren't as stacked against you as you like to imagine?

Re:Another example of US myopia

[t2t10]

Most Islamic governments have laws under which I would be imprisoned or executed for my religious beliefs. The Palestinian government apparently has the same laws. Explain to me why I should support any of those governments?

I am sorry for the Palestinian people, but before they can get more than my sympathy, they need to create for themselves governments that aren't hell-bent on killing people like me. Until they do, all I see is two right wing, intolerant governments--those of Israel and those of the Palestinians--battling each other.

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

ignore 60 years of occupation

Well, aren't you using that term a bit loosely. If you do the math it sounds like there were no Jews around those parts so many years ago.

Perhaps the Ottoman empire should take over again.

Re:Another example of US myopia

[matria]

Of course, "tenants stop paying rent, tenants get evicted, new tenants move in" doesn't sound as interesting, does it?

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

you expect the other side to be fairly portrayed in the Jews' Media?

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now there is a poster in Times Square about Iran and how we shouldnt let them get a nuclear
weapon. Somebody paid a lot of money for that ad, yet they seemingly arent selling anything. Why? Whats in it for them?
 
Not glowing in the dark?

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

re-read the comments...90% of them didn't comment on the West Bank..they went off about 'how Islam is dangerous and bad' and 'its not compatible with the West' blah, blah....

Dude, there are a lot of people who would sympathize with you more if you didn't do the "some guy on Daily Kos called Bush a dick." thing, where the (understandably) hypersensitive and shrill overshadows your point. You're trying to use Slashdot to counteract comments on another site, which may make sense from a PR standpoint, but doesn't speak at all to the people you have a problem with. If I was going to be more pointed, it's kind of like the I-P situation in general.

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Smiths]

whether people sympathize with me shouldnt matter.

this is information.

evaluate it on whether its true or not, not on whether it comes off as polemic.

to my view this is information that is not disementated in the US very much.

"They hate us for our freedom, Al Queda, Hamas, Hizbolla, Iran, Muslims are all seen as one blob thats threatening us."

thats how I see Americans perspective of I/P, Muslims...and thats simply not true, and in fact is very dangerous.

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Smiths]

If you care about 9/11 you should make yourself intimately familiar with I/P.

It is the main reason for 9/11 and every terrorist attack on America.

Once we kill all the terrorists, if we dont deal with that, there will be new terrorists to take their place.

this is what happens when you focus on the wrong root of the problem(islam) instead of the real reason we are being attacked (nakba, Palestine)

Re:Another example of US myopia

[indiechild]

It looks to me like you're trying to change the subject. Smiths has a good point.

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh FFS. The Western mainstream media agrees with you. It hates Israel. Drive them into the sea! Wir mussen die Juden ausrotten! etc.

Is that what the mainstream media says? Surely you can provide links and references to what you are quoting?

But unlike your "niche blogs", the mainstream media is compelled to give some impression of impartiality, which is why it reports bad things about Hamas too.

But curiously none of the things Smiths has listed.

In your ideal world, maybe it would keep quiet about that, given that Hamas is all about world peace and Israel are the real terrorists(!?!)

Hyperbole will get you nowhere. It is well established, by the Israel-hating mainstream media, that the ruling political party in Palestine is a terrorist organisation funded by Iranians.

Also, look, plenty of people agree with you. You're "Insightful", apparently. So maybe things aren't as stacked against you as you like to imagine?

Against whom now? No one except you claimed that things are stacked against them.

Re:Another example of US myopia

[Synonymous Homonym]

Everyone seems to forget about Malcolm X and the Black Muslims.
Surely those are a threat to the KKK, and therefore Islam is dangerous to the American Way Of Life(tm).

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no Homas on East bank nowadays. The story is a low profile disinformation. What a naive people they are so they think that we will believe them? This is propaganda and FUD profiled for a lowly minded crowds! A lie that blantly cotradict facts!

In any case...

[BrokenHalo]

Westerners did "defend" their values (such as they were) several hundred years ago, like this and it wasn't any prettier than Hamas' attempt.

So let's not claim that Islam has a monopoly on repression.

Re:In any case...

[0100010001010011]

That's because no on one expected that, at least from the Spanish.

Re:In any case...

[BrokenHalo]

I was briefly tempted to make an aside along the same lines, but of course the inquisition went far beyond the Spanish...

doesn't seem much different then in the USA

[Nyder]

Of course, we don't really worry to much with "heresy", but damn they want us to narc on our neighbors, report any "suspious" activity we see.

That's the start, of course. Soon we'll be just like them.

Re:doesn't seem much different then in the USA

[DNS-and-BIND]

What the hell does this comment have to do with Palestine, Facebook, or the enforcement of heresy as a state crime? The only thing you can think of is "it's not too different here and that means we are horrible." WTF dude.

I read wrong

[Xentan]

I was puzzled when i first read the title. Why is hearsay illeagal inside a bank? Then i re-read and got it right, i guess i just cant believe its 2010 and people still can get arrested for heresy.

Fanaticism is the problem

[gestalt_n_pepper]

On both sides, large swathes of the population have been persuaded to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of their reasoning, and so are able to justify any actions at all. I started this headline with "religious fanaticism" but the communists under Stalin were no better. It's the laziness of people who would rather be willfully stupid and lie to themselves in order to be psychologically comfortable that leads down the path to these atrocities. Fundamentalists of every ilk. Feh.

We used to do this sort of thing as well...

[advocate_one]

but that was back when Catholics and Protestants were fighting each other for the souls of their subjects... Bishop Hooper was burnt at the stake in my home town back in 1555... It's such a pity that some loonies want to remain in the middle ages...

Re:We used to do this sort of thing as well...

[EnsilZah]

Well, considering Christianity has about 600 years of a head start on Islam they seem to be pretty much at the same stage respectively.

Re:We used to do this sort of thing as well...

[geekoid]

Actually, the radical groups now associated with Islamic belief started in about 1950.

American heresy

[br00tus]

Meanwhile, the FBI is kicking down the doors of people like this Minneapolis school teacher, old anti-war hippie from the 1960s etc. because they want the US to stop sending billions to kill people in Palestine, Colombia etc. Speaking against the empire - the only American heresy.

Of course we should mention that Hamas was funded by the Mossad originally as a bulwark against the PLO, something that mainstream sources in Israel and the US acknowledge. Israel (with help from the US) knocked out the secular, left-wing Palestinians like the PFLP, DFLP and company as that is who they have always been afraid of. So what is left but the religious nationalists? Israel prefers them in charge, as does the US. They make an easier target.

The US overthrew the secular Iranian government in the 1950s and installed a dictatorship...now the only complaint is the pro-US dictator, the Shah, who wiped out the secular left during his decades in power, is not in charge any more. Iraq had one of the few secular governments in the Middle East, and was a target of two US wars. With US troops now there, Iraq has declared itself an Islamic republic (read the constitution), something never said in Hussein's day (although he was forced to concede some of this after the First Gulf War). So the result of the invasion has been this. Also, of course, the US armed Osama bin Laden so as to overthrow the secular, communist Afghani government.

Re:American heresy

[t2t10]

Interpreting US actions in the ME as empire building and creation of religious regimes doesn't make much sense. The US doesn't build empires in the traditional sense, but it wants military superiority to ensure free trade (which is in US economic interests) and US safety. And US foreign policy does use religion when it seems expedient, but not as an end in itself. I don't think those policies are wise, but they are a far cry from what other world powers have done to nations around the world.

Re:American heresy

[sourcerror]

Of course religion was only a tool to fight the commies. Nothing to sewe here. It still doesn't justify those US actions which by the way went against international law.

Re:American heresy

[t2t10]

It still doesn't justify those US actions which by the way went against international law.

The US spent hundreds of billions of dollars to oust illegitimate, genocidal and oppressive regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and is quickly returning those nations to government by their people. If that "went against international law", then there's something wrong with international law, not US actions.

Re:American heresy

[sourcerror]

I don't know what genocidal actions you mean. Maybe Iran-Iraq war, when Iraq used chemical weapons - supplied by the US - against Iranian troops?

The justification of Saddam's death sentence was his retaliation of a failed assasination attempt. 150 were executed, but I don't think it could be called a genocide. (It wasn't ethnic cleansing. )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre

Re:American heresy

[sourcerror]

On the other hand you deliberately skipped over the coup against the democratically elected Iranian government. Can you justify that too?

Re:American heresy

[t2t10]

That's because it's not so simple. It was Winston Churchill and the UK that wanted the overthrow of the Iranian government because British oil interests were at stake. The UK simply couldn't do it themselves so they asked the US for help. The US eventually agreed to help in order to strengthen the UK (important for Europe), for a share of the oil profits promised by the UK, and out of genuine strategic interests during the cold war.

By today's standards, what the US did was both a bad idea and morally wrong. But compared to the brutal methods Britain and France were using to hold their failing empires together at the time, the CIA really did very little: some propaganda and misinformation. In any case, whatever responsibility the US has for Iran is shared at least equally with the UK.

Re:American heresy

[t2t10]

Saddam Hussein was responsible for genocide against the Kurds, the murder of large number of dissidents, and for the deaths in the various wars he started and their aftermath, probably about 900000 over two decades. Those categories are a subset of what the Iraq Death Count is counting now (it also includes other kind of violence). So, if you compare the numbers, far fewer people are dying now per year than before. It's still a depressing statistic, but it doesn't make sense to point at the current death count and say "if only the US hadn't invaded". And from speaking with Iraqis, my impression is that they generally think Iraq is better off now.

(Incidentally, I was against the Iraq war. I thought even at the time that it was unwise and a waste of money.)

Re:American heresy

[sourcerror]

I guess you might intrested in this:

http://johnshaplin.blogspot.com/2010/10/ex-cia-perspective-on-global-war-on.html

Re:American heresy

[t2t10]

What he's saying is that Bush lied, that these wars are not in the US interest, and that the war on terrorism isn't working. And I agree with all of that. It doesn't contradict the observation that Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than before.

And I do agree the US should withdraw from most of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Europe. Let the Europeans deal themselves with the messes they created on their doorstep, and let the Europeans pay for their own defense.

Re:American heresy

[sourcerror]

"It doesn't contradict the observation that Iraq and Afghanistan are better off now than before."

I'm not so sure of that.

"The degree to which the American people are deceived by the cozy relationship between the press and government in the United States was clearly evidenced in my interview with with Mohammad Nizami, formerly the head of the Taliban's radio and TV network and now a member of the Karzai regime. He expressed his support for an Islamic government of Afghanistan ruled by strict Sharia law. He opposed equal rights for women and wanted to see foreign troops withdrawn. Only his timetable had changed. As a Taliban leader he had called for an immediate withdrawal. As a Karzai supporter he thought they should wait until the Afghan Army could stand on its own.

That tolerance for the continued presence of U.S. Troops was sufficient to make him an ally in the view of the United States and Karzai. The dirty secret you will never see exposed in the mainline media is that the Taliban's ideology and political views on the future of Afghanistan are quite similar to many of Karzai's top supporters, including members of his cabinet. They, too, want a fundamentalist-ruled Afghanistan and have nothing but contempt for democratic elections. The war pits two sets of fundamentalists against one another, the difference being one side has U.S. support and the other doesn't. "

http://johnshaplin.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-media-by-reese-erlich.html

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/top-british-gen-sir-david-richards-says-west-cant-defeat-al-qaida-militarily/19715982

Re:American heresy

[t2t10]

There used to be the certainty of a fundamentalist regime. Right now there is merely the potential for one, and the Afghan people have a chance to turn their nation around. I consider that "better off".

Actually they did...

[Anonymous Coward]

It says right there on top of the FA - QALQILIYA, West Bank. They did not elect Hamas, that was in Gaza, in fact the whole point of the FA is how far the supposedly secular PA will go to prosecute the man.

Minor sidenote, actually they did elect Hamas in the West Bank as well as in Gaza, but Fatah never really cared much about the election results so they just kept on going, with U.S. and Israeli support as usual.

Your happy accident

[Alain Williams]

This is not an issue specific to PA territories: in any islamic country you would be screwed if you logged in to Facebook as God and criticized islam. The same would have happened in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey etc. Sadly, the problem is with islamism (and maybe with islam).

You are fortunate that, by accident of birth, you were born in a different location where it is personally dangerous to not profess believe in faith X. This you understand.

You are also fortunate that, by accident of birth, you were not born a few hundred years ago where uttering enacceptable views the inquisition would have done much the same as has happened to this unfortunate man. This is not just a disease of Islam, but many other faiths mistreat those who do not accept their quirky world view.

This is why freedom of speech is so important and is a right that we need to fight to preserve.

This is also why we need a clear division between functioning of the state and any form of religion. In many countries this has been achieved, but some countries are regressing -- the USA is one of these.

In the West Bank and not Gaza.

[tumbak]

according to TFA, this man was apprehended in the West Bank and not Gaza.

The case of the unlikely apostate, a shy barber from this backwater West Bank town, is highlighting the limits of tolerance in the Western-backed Palestinian Authority

The West Bank which is controlled by the Western-backed PA and not Hamas, how Hamas was thrown into this piece only reflects the current trend of the Zionist western media.

Re:In the West Bank and not Gaza.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like both areas are a haven for free speech repression...FTA: "Gaza's Hamas rulers also stalk Facebook pages for suspected dissenters, said Palestinian rights activist Mustafa Ibrahim. He said Internet cafe owners are forced to monitor customers' online activity and alert intelligence officials if they see anything critical of the militant group or that violates Hamas' stern interpretation of Islam."

Penal Code 170 & 173

[t2t10]

The Israeli penal code does make blasphemy illegal (output from Google Translate):

170. Destroying, damaging, or desecrating a place of worship, or any object held sacred crowd of people, deliberately degrade their religion, or knowingly that they may see this act an insult to their religion, Dino - three years imprisonment.

173. Makes one of the following countries - one year's imprisonment; (1) Publishes advertising that injure blatantly religious beliefs or their feelings of others; (2) Makes a public place and in the hearing of a certain word or sound that may harm the faith or gross violation of religious feelings. (3) Harm our sons public tombstones

Not as severe as Islamic blasphemy laws, but they still make blasphemy illegal.

Re:Penal Code 170 & 173

[Swave An deBwoner]

The Israeli penal code does make blasphemy illegal (output from Google Translate):

These look like laws that were created to guarantee freedom of religious practice (note: no specific religion is mentioned - applicable to all religions in the country) rather than to outlaw blasphemy. More like the "anti-hate" statutes in the US, I'd say.

Re:Penal Code 170 & 173

[t2t10]

They are not specific to one religion, but they are anti-blasphemy laws since they effectively outlaw blasphemy. Under them, an atheist could be convicted for stating that the Prophet was a fraud and a mass murderer (both of which are historically defensible positions). Whatever the intent, such laws are incompatible with freedom of religion.

The US has nothing equivalent (the US only has hate crime laws, no hate speech laws), but Europe does.

Re:Penal Code 170 & 173

[Anonymous Coward]

I would see this less as blasphemy and more as ordinances against hate speech and religious bigotry.

Freedom is not an absolute

[SmallFurryCreature]

Freedom is NOT some kind of absolute that stays the same whereever you are. It is not a constant.

Freedom is whatever I want to do and you might not like that one bit.

One societies freedom is not another societies freedom. Take something as harmless as comics/strips/manga. The US has lots of violence, but no nudity. The Japanese have lots of nudity but no politics. European has nudity and violence and politics because EU rules but the strip is a far smaller medium... go figure.

Who then has more freedom? A "kids" comic like Oliver Blunder (Walter Melon) has occasional nudity in it, including topless women. It isn't about nudity, just that in some scenes a nude makes sense, so it is there. Americans would have a fit. Japanese would wonder why there is so little of it and where the censor bar that hides nothing is.

What society is free? Probably all of them would consider themselves to be free societies.

So, say now that the mood among the people is to be extremely religious? Is it then a freedom to act on this? Is Hamas excersing its freedom by enforcing its views on others? Though one.

The only people confused by all this are kiddies who want to see the world in black & white and want to see the world burn. Once they defended Israel blindly, now they side with Hamas unquestionably. You can already see it on this forum, all the twisting to not have to admit that if you replaced Hamas with Republicans the forum would be on fire. Fact is there are no heroes in the real world. Hippies who ran away with Indian culture never seemed to notice the kast system. EU right wingers never seem to notice the countless problem with the rabid capitalism in the US. Privatize the railroads.... why because it worked so wel in the US?

Hamas if you dare to look honestly at it is a very scare group. They are not nice people. But the locals thought they could get things done, so voted for them and now getting rid of them is near impossible. (US and tea-party, UK and conservatives) This is hardly the first time hamas has shown its extremists face. But the west chooces not to see because it makes the Israel-Palestine conflict one between a flawed democracy and a extremist religion totally at odds with any western value.

Gosh, where did we see this before? What side did US support again in Afghanistan? What side is the US on in the Pakistan-India conflict?

And it is not just the west. SECULAR Syria (how many of you knew Syria is secular) is finding out that its use of religious extremist is NOT without risk as they might use their power to not just overthrow Israel but Syria as well. Iran is happy to support Hamas, as long as they stay outside Iran. Cause Iran doesn't need more terror bombings by religious extremists. Oh, you didn't know that Iran has its own fights as well? It does. Why do you think no Arab nation has ever seriously offered a home to the Palestinians? Don't want the mess. Either side, not the democrats or the reglious extremists. Both would be a danger to the typical dictatorships in the region.

And yet some kiddie who hates the world thinks Hamas is his hero for fighting the powers that be. Yeah, wear that scarf with pride girl, knowing that if a true Hamas ever met you, he would kill you for not going fully covered.

Re:Freedom is not an absolute

[ultranova]

But the west chooces not to see because it makes the Israel-Palestine conflict one between a flawed democracy and a extremist religion totally at odds with any western value.

So basically you're saying that Israel and Palestine deserve each other?

That's cold, man, ice cold ;).

Re:Freedom is not an absolute

[russotto]

Probably all of them would consider themselves to be free societies.

No, they don't. Freedom is not a universal value. Islam, for instance, means "submission to God". Freedom as an actual isn't even universal -- or common -- in the West any more, but most people think they value it even when they don't.

Re:Freedom is not an absolute

[sourcerror]

". Why do you think no Arab nation has ever seriously offered a home to the Palestinians?"

Because arabs would lose claim to the land of Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak-Hungarian_population_exchange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanianization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_Autonomous_Region

They make one big admission

[Anonymous Coward]

"criticizing religious texts for their (intellectual) weakness can only be combatted by ... oppression, prison and execution."

Obviously they are totally aware that it is impossible to support their religious texts with any type of intellectual dialog or logic. The only way that Islam can win an argument is by oppression, violence, and threats. Imagine we did maths the same way.

Can you prove Fermats last theorem?

Yes. If you don't accept it is right we will torture and kill you and rape your wife and children. Do you consider it proved now.

Uh .... yes absolutely, you can't question Fermat's last theorem.

Re:Barbarians... = Yep. Palisimians

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any real doubt anymore that "Palisimians" is accurate?

There are few things more scary...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... than a Westener who thinks cultural diversity is exists only because the West hasn't given them the right culture yet.

While Twitter postings lead to arrest for heresy..

[John Hasler]

...in Britain.

BURN EVERYONE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think they're just going change and be so nice to Jews, Christians and pagans you should take a really close look at the history of Islam.

Well... if we are to follow THAT logic all catholic countries should be sterilized by nuclear weapons - just because of their religion's history of going to unprovoked "Crusades" i.e. raping/pillaging wars. No need to mention inquisition but I will. Inquisition.

Then... USA should be sunk under the ocean.
I know that it would be a hard thing to do, but its history of genocide over the local population, slavery, stealing land from Mexico, destroying the world economy on several occasions and being the only country in the world to ever perform a nuclear attack on anyone...
Well, you can't really argue with all that history.

Then, the former Soviet Union. Kill everyone. History demands it.
Same with China. India too...

Ah fuck it, let's just kill everyone everywhere and then just to be sure hurl the Earth into the Sun.

Re:BURN EVERYONE!!!!

[Culture20]

If they don't change their popular core beliefs you will always have problems with them: http://www.tawfikhamid.com/abcs-test-for-radical-islam/

Well... if we are to follow THAT logic all catholic countries should be sterilized by nuclear weapons - just because of their religion's history of going to unprovoked "Crusades" i.e. raping/pillaging wars. No need to mention inquisition but I will. Inquisition.

I realize you're a Troll, but I feel pity and have a whole storehouse of food. GP was referring to core beliefs, not historical hypocrisy, and you selectively edited to make a strawman. The Inquisition and the Crusades had less to do with Christian/Catholic core beliefs, than violent Jihad does with Islam.

Re:BURN EVERYONE!!!!

[TheLink]

My point was that muslims first have to deal with the "ABC"s as per the link. If they continue to hold those beliefs, they will continue cause problems.

And as long as most Palestinians hold on to these "ABC"s they contribute to the Palestinian problem.

I'm not a huge supporter of Israel at all, but I sure understand why they do what they do. It's like you fighting with someone, if he:
1) Doesn't promise to not kill you.
2) Keeps hitting you and trying to kill you whenever you let him go.
It's pretty understandable if you put a choke-hold on him and not let go. Not pleasant to watch, but from what I see many of the Palestinians and their supporters share a HUGE part of the blame for their situation.

Israel seems to get on reasonably with Egypt and Jordan, after both agreed to make peace with Israel. But the rest of the Arab/muslim nations including the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel and they want to eliminate Israel.

So why is anyone surprised when Israel does not want to loosen their chokehold on the Palestinians?

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Camp_David_Summit_.282000.29

In July 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak reportedly offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem,[13] and that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel. He also proposed "temporary Israeli control" indefinitely over another 10% of the West Bank territory--an area including many more Jewish settlements. According to Palestinian sources, the remaining area would be under Palestinian control, yet certain areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints. Depending on how the security roads would be configured, these Israeli roads might impede free travel by Palestinians throughout their proposed nation and reduce the ability to absorb Palestinian refugees.

Arafat rejected this offer. President Clinton reportedly requested that Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami who kept a diary of the negotiations said in an interview in 2001, when asked whether the Palestinians made a counterproposal: "No. And that is the heart of the matter. Never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal."

They rejected that offer. Why don't they make a counterproposal? The Palestinians don't really want to make peace with Israel. To them peace = Israel wiped out.

Hamas certainly don't want peace with Israel, as long as they follow their own charter, any peace they make with Israel can only be temporary: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Yes it's pretty nasty what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, slowly strangling someone is nasty. But what should they do? The Palestinians themselves don't really want to make peace with Israel (as long as killing Jews is considered part of your religion, go figure how long that peace will last).

As for the USA, sure they give aid to Israel (3 billion a year). But guess what, they also give Egypt about a billion a year too (they also give Jordan some money). You can say it's unfair that the USA gives Israel more money, but go visit both Israel and Egypt, compare how well each has been managing their resources, people and wealth.

From a secular perspective being a citizen of Israel would be better than being a citizen of "Greater Palestine" ruled by Hamas (assuming Israel is gone). Plenty of evidence - this "arrested for heresy" story is just one.

But it doesn't look like most Palestinians see it that way, they'd rather wipe out Israel and be ruled/oppressed by Hamas or similar. That is their dream.

Re:BURN EVERYONE!!!!

[Tom]

The Inquisition and the Crusades had less to do with Christian/Catholic core beliefs,

Excuse me?

Funny how for all the bad things, it is never the religion that is the cause, even when the event in question is clearly religious in nature. No, of course that was all politics, has nothing whatsoever to do with the religion.

Start by accepting that the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, various anti-jewish pogroms and many other evilness were caused by, supported by and at least actively operated by and through the christian faith.

Only when you've done that will you be taken seriously, and then you can proceed to outline how christianity has changed since then, accepting that this change wasn't caused from within, but by the outside force of reason, namely the renaissance and the enlightenment, and why through those changes a religion that is evil at its core (read the old testament, and no Jesus has not annulled it, by his own claims he only "completed" it, and besides it is still a part of the holy book, yes?) has been softened and dulled into something that is mostly tolerable.

Well, to be fair..

[Anonymous Coward]

One rather larger "western culture" is "defending" its "freedom" by waging two occupation wars on the opposite side of the planet.
And that's just like... you know... at the moment and not accounting for all those other wars in the last couple of centuries nor setting up all those dictatorships and such.

If they were to exhibit the "same "vigilance" as Hamas" they would have to... I don't know... wage a civil war for liberation of some minority or something?
Like... I don't know.. A war to give all the land they currently occupy to it's original owners.
Granted... most of them are extinct now, but it would be worth to try.
Maybe they could be cloned back?

Re:Well, to be fair..

[DarkMinds69]

Sorry, You DumbFuck, But there were no original owners...No Human EVER evolved in the americas

Re:Well, to be fair..

[Coren22]

One rather larger "western culture" is "defending" its "freedom" by waging two occupation wars on the opposite side of the planet.
And that's just like... you know... at the moment and not accounting for all those other wars in the last couple of centuries nor setting up all those dictatorships and such.

Two wars of occupation? You don't know much of the history of these "wars" if you think they are anything about occupation.

Afghanistan: the US was invited into the country to try to take down the Al Queda network

Iraq: Disposed a dictator/genocidist, then instituted general elections and worked to teach the country how to be stable with a democracy. We are still there trying to train their military and police to help prevent the insurgents from simply taking over.

Last I checked, there are no occupations here, if you can show signs of occupation, I will be sure to view them

They're coming after you next.

[pleasegetreal]

This is nothing unusual. It has been going on in Islamic countries for as long as Islam has existed.

Awful religious jerks

[eyenot]

For a moment I started to feel sympathy for the bigots and despots in Israel who call Palestinians "cockroaches" and who would "push them into the sea". It's extremely cruel and heartbreaking how people are treated under extreme Islam and I'd be pretty damn cagey, too, if I had them for millenial neighbors. I usually side with what I see as the underdog or victim of injustice, but it's hard to help somebody who's self-inflicting. By that same token, I think I'd be crazy-ass martyring myself and self-inflicting, too, if I had to live next to the Biblical jews for thousands of years.

People go on about the human rights aspect of it all the time but it's really just about a prime piece of real estate, the "rock" or "temple mount". It's where the Ark of the Covenant was placed and where Mohamet ascended into heaven. At one time the temple of Solomon was there, and now there's the Dome. Some people argue this, some people argue that. "This belongs there", "that belongs to them", "they were there first", "they beat them fair and square", "this is acclaimed by so and so", "this is argued by blah blah", "mine", "ours", "his", and on and on. And there's plenty of murder to back up all the arguments, and with each murder there's a declaration that victory was by divine will, and then that person gets killed and it's this big game of "king of the hill".

Ultimately, what I guess this story does for me is balance out the entire Jerusalem equation, to the extent that I just really don't care about that part of the world so much and could care less how they handle each other. Obviously the whole spiritual, closeness with God thing doesn't do people much good, at all, unless you want to count lowering the population and restraining humanity's ecological footprint as "good" and can tolerate the proven evil of religious states.

Funny how nearsighted people continue to bicker about who's more right between Jews, Muslims, and Christians, when even a cursory glance from a distance shows that all three comprise the most heinous affront to humanity on the planet. Unabashed, self-righteous murderers all, and mostly over this one single stone outcropping. I swear to God, I'm starting to believe that were were beating our chests and jacking off on that thing all the way back in monkeydom.

The religion of peace strikes again, I see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, Islam... The last refuge of the prehistoric mind...

Hooray to us for propping up this awful regime!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/11/clinton_announces_150_million_to_help_build_a_palestinian_state

Hooray for our bold leaders propping up yet another horrible government. Meanwhile, we're drowning in debt and our black messiah just got told to fuck off at the G20 summit. Don't you just love being treated like a limitless charge card, my fellow Americans? It really does amaze me that our leaders continue to give away money like it was candy, in spite of the very clear message that we just sent them that we want to restore fiscal sanity. If I write a hot check I go to jail, but if Uncle Sam does it he just prints more money. Isn't that just wonderful?

Re:Hooray to us for propping up this awful regime!

[sourcerror]

Well, Israel gets $ 3 billion a year, so it's just to seem impartial :)

Yeah.. sure...

[denzacar]

"Western" values... Completely imagined by "Western Civilizations".
Very similar in their credibility and originality to "World Series" sports competitions and "Miss Universe" beauty pageants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Asia

Asia

Human-centered philosophy that rejected the supernatural can be found as early as 1000 BCE in the Lokayata system of Indian philosophy. Also in the sixth-century BCE, Gautama Buddha expressed, in Pali literature, a skeptical attitude toward the supernatural:[13]

        Since neither soul nor aught belonging to soul can really and truly exist, the view which holds that this I who am 'world,' who am 'soul,' shall hereafter live permanent, persisting, unchanging, yea abide eternally: is not this utterly and entirely a foolish doctrine?

In China, Huangdi is regarded as the humanistic primogenitor. Sage kings such as Yao and Shun are humanistic figures as recorded. King Wu of Zhou has the famous saying: "Human is the ling (spirit, soul, god, or leader) in the world (among all)". Among them, Duke of Zhou, respected as an initial founder of Rujia (Confucianism), is especially prominent and pioneering in humanistic thought. His words were recorded in the Book of History as follows (translated into English):

        What the people desire, Heaven certainly comply.
        Heaven (God) is not believable. Our Tao (doctrine) is moral (from former sage kings and to be continued forward).

In the sixth century BCE, Taoist teacher Laozi held natural humanistic philosophy. Confucius also taught secular ethics. The silver rule of Confucianism from Analects XV.24, is an example of ethical philosophy based on human values rather than the supernatural. Humanistic thought is also contained in other Confucian classics, e.g., as recorded in Zuo Zhuan, Ji Liang says: "People is the zhu (master, lord, dominance, owner or origin) of gods. So, to sage kings, people first, gods second"; Neishi Guo says: "Gods, clever, righteous and wholehearted, comply with human.

Civilizations that have 8000 years or so of culture "under their belt" tend to come up with important philosophical ideas earlier than their "younger neighbors".

Re:Yeah.. sure...

[russotto]

Civilizations that have 8000 years or so of culture "under their belt" tend to come up with important philosophical ideas earlier than their "younger neighbors".

Unfortunately, they often enough don't actually DO anything with them, preferring to preserve their sacred cows.

Cause and effect?

[mangu]

Try living in a country that is actively oppressed, where the supply of practically everything is subject to the whims of some outside force

Considering what the Hamas government does, I think those outside forces aren't so whimsical at all.

That's how the human mind works - you need to have your base desires satisfied before you start thinking about more abstract things.

The problem here is that what you call "base desires" and "abstract things" aren't as clearcut as that.

From the religious fanatic point of view, the "base desire" is their religion, things like food or medicine are "abstract things" for them.

Re:Barbarians? And where do you live?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?? Let's see.....

free speech:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/11/1711214/UK-Politician-Arrested-Over-Twitter-Stoning-Joke
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/13/0246217/UK-Twitter-Users-Declare-Im-Spartacus

invasion of privacy (prison style - and yes, these were used ("tested"?) in prisons instead of pat downs in last 9 years or so):

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/10/31/0234232/TSA-To-Make-Pat-Downs-More-Embarrassing-To-Encourage-Scanner-Use
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/08/0245200/Full-Body-Scanners-Violate-Child-Porn-Laws

etc. etc.. etc.....

Heresy is just nothing more than a type of slander. Something that will get you arrested in the UK too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html

In UK, you don't have free speech. Much like you don't have free speech in West Bank, or hell, Israel. I'm certain in Israel you can join one of the "settler" protests and chant death to muslims. Or you can join some protest in west bank and chant death to Israel. But if you reverse that position, you will most likely not be in a very good position. Same in UK, you can't even use fucking parodies or you'll get convicted of "threats"!!!

So, barbarism in the West Bank? Sure.. But not that far from what is happening HERE. Coercion. Intimidation. Threats. All live HERE. Be that "free" UK, or "free" US. To be very frank, the old 1970s style Communist Soviet Union? In some ways, it was much more free.. :(

Not to defend Israel

[Shivetya]

but even without Israel Palestinians would never be free. No one wanted them before Israel existed and after it did, Israel got to be the target for their plight. Let alone the fact that most Palestinians have more to fear from their own government and other entities within their lands than from Israel.

Hamas chick

[Anonymous Coward]

I was on contract in Egypt and she was there on vacation with some friends. We were high and made out at night on the beach at a low budget resort. All I remember was how turned on she was while we were playing around. After having sex, she started talking about how she had done some work for Hamas...very low level stuff, and how the guys were all assholes. She was clearly pretty desperate to get out of there, yes, but from her description of the guys she worked with I could see why. I felt bad for her, but there was no way I could bring her back to the US. In the end we just had fun for a few days, crazy sex every night, and then parted ways. I wish the world wasn't so fucked up...I would have gladly dated her if we could have made it work. *sigh*.

Religion

[chucklebutte]

Only when its gone will the world be at peace. Religious people are weak, confused junkies that are too afraid to do any real drugs. God is their crutch. I wish I was born a 1000 years from now, hopefully by then people will have ascended to a new level of conscience thinking and leave behind all that frilly nilly religion bullshit, like all the other failed and disproved beliefs like zeus or mayan, inca, indian "gods". But seriously why is there a god but no zeus? What makes god so good? I rather have spooky mystical giants that live on a mountain than spooky mystical bearded man in the sky. The greek and roman gods were much much cooler than just one boring plain god.

So yes why are we sure that Zeus is a myth, but god is not? Can't have your cake and eat it too...

Re:Religion

[MysteriousPreacher]

Old Testament God was pretty interesting. He's a very human (albeit mentally deranged) character who likes to play games with the mortals and isn't afraid to personally come down and kick some arse. The basic message was "I'll do whatever the hell I want, and maybe that includes fucking you up". The sequel became a bit too preachy, and they clearly cast a new actor to play the part of God, but there are still parts in which the old "fuck you all and your donkeys" attitude of God shines through.

By the way. I'd give it 2000 years just to be on the safe side.

Re:Religion

[geekoid]

yes they can. and THAT'S the problem.

Blame-Shifting 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame-Shifting 101 (or, "How To Look 'Progressive' by Defending Terrorists")

• When cornered, remember, "Everyone else is doing it" is a valid defense.
  • Even better, remember that "Someone else used to do it" is an even better one.

Re:Blame-Shifting 101

[glwtta]

Wait, what? Who was defending anything?

Classic misdirection

[pchan-]

This is a tech blog. This was a story about technology and abuse of freedom of speech. This guy is trying to change the discussion to push his agenda when Israel was in no way involved in this story. Observe his obvious ploy and ignore it.

Re:Classic misdirection

[Smiths]

I know lets go back to the 'this is what I hate Islam' trolling that followed this story.

Heresy a form of slander?

[VirginMary]

Heresy is just nothing more than a type of slander. Something that will get you arrested in the UK too.

No, it's not! How can you slander an imaginary being? Also, isn't it up to the slandered entity to defend itself? Finally, where do you get live imprisonment or people seriously calling for the death penalty for slander? I conclude that you have no fuckin' clue what the hell you're talking about! Just talking out of your ass again, huh? And I don't see how the illegal and evil behaviour of Israel has anything to do with this! Finally, just because I called them "Western Values" does not mean that Western countries do necessarily adhere to them in everything they do. We all know they don't. It's just that humanistic values, freedom of speech etc. are often called "Western Values" in Western democracies. Maybe I should have chosen a less controversial term.

Not exactly

[Roger W Moore]

Freedom of religion is not exactly in the US constitution - all it says is that the US congress cannot pass a law establishing or restricting the "free exercise" of religion which is not the same as granting a right of freedom of religion. In the US case there is nothing in the constitution to prevent any private corporation refusing to hire anyone who is (or is not) of religion X - although I understand that you do have laws for that.

If it were that you were granted the right of "freedom of religion" then extra laws would not be required: all corporations and individuals would be also bound to respect it. The difference might be subtle but in the current climate of increasing corporate power it may turn out to be a very important one.

Re:Not exactly

[sdw]

1st amendment to the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The constitution restricts the government. Hamas is acting as a government, not a corporation.
Conflating corporations with government would be bad: Corporations are people. Your suggestion that "all corporations and individuals would be also bound to respect it" implies that people would be restricted in their religious choices. In a broad sense, this conflicts with the 1st amendment.

Re:Not exactly

[SuricouRaven]

Though complicating the matter, note that some corporations can become so hugely powerful that they could be considered akin to government and so in need of similar levels of restriction to protect individual rights.

Re:Not exactly

[sumdumass]

If it were that you were granted the right of "freedom of religion"

You aren't really granted a right. You always have the right in a free environment, governments and people just take them away. Our constitution attempts to stop the government from being able to take the right away, but it doesn't give any right- those presumably already exist.

Re:Not exactly

[Roger W Moore]

That was exactly my point. It is far better to grant a right than it is to just stop a government taking them away because the right stops ANYONE from taking it away, not just the government.

Re:Not exactly

[Roger W Moore]

Your suggestion that "all corporations and individuals would be also bound to respect it" implies that people would be restricted in their religious choices.

How? All it would do is stop corporations from preventing their employees following whatever religion they desired since to restrict their choices would violate their right to freedom of religion. People would still be free to say what they like about any religion since that does not in any way restrict the freedom of people to choose - although it might persuade them to make different choices.

In a broad sense, this conflicts with the 1st amendment.

Conflicts between rights always occurs which is why we have courts. You might as well say that the law against murder restricts religious freedom because it prevents human sacrifices. In this case society clearly values the right to life over the right to freedom of religion. As I mentioned above criticizing a religion does not restrict its practice so there is no broad conflict although there might be specific cases of conflict which are easily resolved e.g. churches, synagogues etc. should be allowed to only hire followers of their own faith.

Please moderate better

[chrb]

Abuse of moderation to -1 a comment that you don't want others to read in an article on free speech? Interesting...

I am God

[Rosy At Random]

and Muhammed is a big poopy-head.

I'd like my beatification to take place as soon as possible, thanks and ramen.

Quotes from Facebook...

[akayani]

I think this is a terrible outcome as it plays into the hands of a group of people on Facebook that are trying their best to demonize every Muslim, Palestinian and Arab.

Let me give you some direct quotes from the Facebook conversations...

<<<

Loving Zion -- "Palestine" represents a hell to Israel. The Devil himself conceived a plan in the heart of the seed of Esau and Ishmael to be contrary to G-D's holy plan for Jacob's seed!

Ramona Antiisrahell Lambardo -- G-d said thou shalt not kill but Chairman Heilbrun of the Committe for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983 said, 'We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves' .

Jsh Zion -- Right now Zionism feels the heat of hell at it's borders and even in it's midst in Gaza, Samaria, Judea, and from all those here that spew rage and filth from the depths of their beings. You see you all live with a delusion that you can say whatever you want and that there is no such thing as hell when you die, but I ...am here to say otherwise. Martin, you are a filthy rotten anti-semite who will regret every word you have uttered for their is G-D!

Darcy Abernathy -- true the only way to truely be holy and righteous in islam is to blow your own ass up and take innocents with you...fucked up people.

<<<

Be aware of how many Palestinians have been dispossess and forced out of Israel. Particularly intellectuals. Be aware that Israel initially financed HAMAS as a way to destabilize Palestinian politics.

This will most definitely be a story that is used to further disempower Palestinians and claim Israel is an angel. Israel is NO angel, Israel is involved in ethnic cleansing and will use anything they can grab to justify that.

And that is where

[geekoid]

all religion eventually leads.every. single. time.

People in power shoving their shit down your throat. Every time. And because they believe they are doing the work for someone who can't be found, communicated with, they can say whatever they like in the dame of their craptacular diety.

MoD KoobFace

[Whatchamacallit]

We should fork KoobFace and change it to seek out Islamic FaceBook users, infect their computers and send out blasphemous content of a supremely offensive nature. We could have it alert the Sharia secret police in each of the Islamofacist states, making it look like random complaints from citizens.

Maybe they will execute each other...

"often enough"?? That's all of recorded history

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you really just sum up the entire length of recorded history with a few thousand years added on in the words "often enough"?