Slashdot Mirror


Nobel Laureate Wiped From Pakistan's Textbooks As Heretic

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Alexander Abad-Santos writes that in any other country, the late Dr. Abdus Salam would be a national hero: he's the Nobel laureate in physics who laid the groundwork for the biggest physics discovery in the past 30 years--the Higgs boson. But that isn't the case in Pakistan, where Salam has been wiped from textbooks and history for not being fundamentalist enough. 'He belonged to the Ahmadi sect, which has been persecuted by the government and targeted by Taliban militants who view its members as heretics,' says Sebastian Abbot. 'His grand unification theory of strong, weak and electromagnetic fields opened the gateway for the discovery of bosons and laid down the basis for this quantum electrodynamics project,' writes Anam Khalid Alvi for Pakistan's Express Tribune. But Pakistan can't celebrate his achievements, since Ahmadis like Salam are and were prevented from 'posing as Muslims,' and can be punished with prison and even death. By contrast, fellow Pakistani physicist A.Q. Khan, who played a key role in developing the country's nuclear bomb and later confessed to spreading nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, is considered a national hero. Khan is a Muslim."

445 comments

  1. Ah don't worry... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember, it's all fine, carry on. They keep saying it's a religion of peace and all that. Don't forget that they scrubbed "muslim" off his grave. And other muslims in the region are expected to go out of their way to persecute them.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:Ah don't worry... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More people get killed by lightning in a couple of months than from terrorism in the last few years.

      Where is the war on lightning?

      Oh... you can't funnel money to corporate buddies if you have a war on lightning.

    2. Re:Ah don't worry... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      280 people killed in the last killed by muslim terrorists between June 23 and June 29th. 1173 people killed by muslim terrorists in June alone. 19,187 terrorist attacks by muslims since 9/11.

      Depending on what stats you're using, between 18,000 and 24,000 people die every year from lightening strikes. Depending on how busy the "religion of peace" is they can exceed that in a year, they did that two years ago.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lordy, if I had a nickel for every time I'd heard one group or another referred to with derision as, "not real Christians". And another nickel for every time someone tried to get some basic scientific theory removed from school, or shoehorn some religious nonsense into classrooms.

      It's certainly not the same, but I'd wager that's just a minor wealth and cultural difference. Give us time.

    4. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, so you think that over 19178 people have been killed by lighting in the last couple of years? Citation needed.

      http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    5. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's Bing?

    6. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, NOAA has been having a "war on lightning" for some time now. And they can filter money into their buddies' pockets - do you think that S.A.M.E radios are free? Does it cost nothing to build a storm shelter?

      Deaths due to lightning, annually: 24,000.

      (As NOAA will tell you - if you can hear thunder, you could get zapped - get your ass inside and stay in until 30 minutes past the last thunderclap. Thank you.)

      Deaths due to terrorism: varies wildly. Pick an arbitrary year, like 2010, and your "more" is a factor of 3, approximately. Some years, it's only a factor of 2. Given all the deaths this year in Iraq, I suspect that the figures will be large.

    7. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you don't agree with what Pakistan did, you're a racist. Welcome to the card game.

    8. Re:Ah don't worry... by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More people get killed by lightning in a couple of months than from terrorism in the last few years.

      Where is the war on lightning?

      Oh... you can't funnel money to corporate buddies if you have a war on lightning.

      This isn't about "terrorism". The routine killing, rape and subjugation of non-Muslims in muslim countries is "business as usual". Its only when they do something to Westerners that they say it is an "act of Terrorism" by a "tiny minority"

    9. Re:Ah don't worry... by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google doesn't recognize him either. There's no doodle of him. But if you search for him on Bing, you find all the relevant info.

      I think this google search shows that there are lies, damn lies, and Microsoft fanboiism.

    10. Re:Ah don't worry... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually lightning fatalities are about 24,000 a year.

      http://www.vaisala.com/Vaisala%20Documents/Scientific%20papers/Annual_rates_of_lightning_fatalities_by_country.pdf

      The fact that you could have just used google to find that instead of trying to spread vitriol says a lot about you.

    11. Re:Ah don't worry... by vlm · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's Bing?

      Its a heretical search engine. Don't follow the path of brimstone and eternal damnation, stick to god's one true search engine. We of /. are the Mighty GOOGs chosen ones anyway.

      (Just wanted to answer in character w/ the article)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:Ah don't worry... by nschubach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      https://www.google.com/webhp?q=Bing

      (Hit the I'm feeling lucky button if you like... if not, all your answers can be found via Google!)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    13. Re:Ah don't worry... by WhiteHover · · Score: 0

      What is a lie? I said there is no Google Doodle of him on the logo. Can you show me where you find one?

    14. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, it's all fine, carry on. They keep saying it's a religion of peace and all that. Don't forget that they scrubbed "muslim" off his grave. And other muslims in the region are expected to go out of their way to persecute them.

      Perhaps a little cherry picking yet it is always interesting to me how cultures that are from the outside almost the same except not in some seemingly insignificant way always seem to hate each other.

      Look at Japan and China...their people look alike in many ways, live right next to each other, have a shared history and use fancy impossible to write glyphs which some people I know can't tell apart.

      North vs south koreans.

      Muslims.. Apparently more than they hate heretics they hate each other. Constantly infighting over nonsense only a Muslim could possibly give two shits about.

      All of mankind is fucking retarded.

    15. Re:Ah don't worry... by brit74 · · Score: 1

      Where is the war on lightning?

      This I learned: lightning rods are part of a corporate conspiracy fueled by irrational fear of "electricity from the sky!" and designed to make Americans pay money for little pieces of metal.

    16. Re:Ah don't worry... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:Ah don't worry... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do you think *I* feel?

      I'm of Scottish Ancestry.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    18. Re:Ah don't worry... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Does bing have a doodle of him?

      I bet they both just have search results for him.

    19. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, nice choice of source material. I'm sure that's entirely fair and well-considered.

      The important part is that, being in a shit-hole place with shit education where everyone has been miserably poor for centuries has much more to do with you being a violent scumbag than the particular batshit superstitions you subscribe to.

      Meanwhile, any muslim you meet in the states is almost certainly a non-violent person. At least on percentage with christians or atheists.

      But yeah, it's all insanity and we need to eradicate religion in all forms for the good of our species.

    20. Re:Ah don't worry... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      280 people killed in the last killed by muslim terrorists between June 23 and June 29th. 1173 people killed by muslim terrorists in June alone. 19,187 terrorist attacks by muslims since 9/11.

      19,187 separate attacks? Can we get a citation for this? Or some methodology? While thereligionofpeace.com seems totally unbiased, I'd like to know where that number comes from. If 11 years (or so) have passed since 9/11/01, that's 1744 and a quarter attacks per year, or 4 and three quarters attacks per day, not taking time off for Ramadan, for 11 years. Just seems like a lot is all.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    21. Re:Ah don't worry... by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 4, Funny

      A true scotsman wouldn't make such a fuss about it...

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    22. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      19k people dying every year is not alot. You gotta take into consideration that alot of these attacks at probably far away from you and within countries like iraq where small attacks may be common. Also, the number itself isn't that large when you compare it to other deaths world wide yearly. Really, it's a fact we often forget but human sadly die pretty easily.

    23. Re:Ah don't worry... by vlm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, as a geek I'm finding that the GOOG is letting me down more and more.

      My son, I feel your pain, you need to restore your faith in the one, true, mighty, GOOG. Perhaps were you wantonly coveting your neighbors iPhone instead of bowing in reverence to our masters Android come down from heaven? The Mighty GOOG knows your thoughts, and shame on you. Now when our elders and ancestors suffered a shortage of mailbox diskspace quota, did not our holy master deliver us gmail, raining down disk space from the data CLOUD in the sky? Did not his mightyness roll back the google WAVE on his very command? Does he not make a data CLOUD rain RSS updates of /.s stories into his mighty goog Reader? Now step over here and let me make the sign of the goog PLUS on your forehead and sin no more. Say 50 www.google.com's while meditating on not falling into following the evil minon of shiney rounded rectanges, St Jobs, or St Gates of the UEFI apocalypse, and I suspect your images.google.com searches for the mighty cavern of goatse will once again be successful. So help us, as we kneel toward MountainView in supplication.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    24. Re:Ah don't worry... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      What's Bing?

      Google it.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    25. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some odd reason, I'm reminded of the chemical castration of Alan Turing by his (no doubt) sensible and well-intentioned countrymen. Truly, bigotry is restricted to religious fundamentalists.

    26. Re:Ah don't worry... by postbigbang · · Score: 0

      Heretic! You shall burn! May the flies of a thousand camels infest your arm pits (thank you St Johnny of Carson).

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    27. Re:Ah don't worry... by tgibbs · · Score: 2

      You said

      There's no doodle of him. But if you search for him on Bing, you find all the relevant info.

      In English, the word "but" is normally used to denote a contrast, so your wording is clearly designed to give the impression that Bing is superior to Google in the amount or relevance of information provided.

      This certainly is a false impression, wouldn't you agree?

    28. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google doesn't recognize him either. There's no doodle of him. But if you search for him on Bing, you find all the relevant info.

      Yeah google doesn't have a doodle of me either. fuck you google and your censorship!!!!

    29. Re:Ah don't worry... by tqk · · Score: 1

      If you don't agree with what Pakistan did, you're a racist.

      No, we're not. I discriminate against stupid, willfully ignorant, foolish, and evil people all the time and I'm proud to do so.

      Speaking of which (you), since when is Pakistani a race?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    30. Re:Ah don't worry... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually lightning fatalities are about 24,000 a year.

      http://www.vaisala.com/Vaisala%20Documents/Scientific%20papers/Annual_rates_of_lightning_fatalities_by_country.pdf

      The fact that you could have just used google to find that instead of trying to spread vitriol says a lot about you.

      Thor does not claim to be peaceful.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    31. Re:Ah don't worry... by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Greece have enough economical problems to worry them with a war against their old gods.

    32. Re:Ah don't worry... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Can't you just scrub my "achievements" off my /. account page? Tradition and all that.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    33. Re:Ah don't worry... by bhlowe · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Right on cue, you are offended by a website and apparently not at all offended by the atrocities committed by those practicing the silly religion that got stuck in the 6th century. We can't do much about acts of God.. but we can sure as hell condemn some of the abominable acts of Man committed in the name of Allah.

      Next up, you'll be defending the reintroduction of sex slaves in Egypt...

    34. Re:Ah don't worry... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      280 people killed in the last killed by muslim terrorists between June 23 and June 29th. 1173 people killed by muslim terrorists in June alone. 19,187 terrorist attacks by muslims since 9/11.

      This from an anti-Muslim hate site. No supporting citations to their numbers, but they promise to "supply sources upon request". Instead of each item linking to some citation, they link to other pages on the anti-Muslim hate site that says the exact same thing as the item.

      Did you know that I'm the Emperor Napoleon? I can supply proof upon request. Instructions on how to request that proof can be found at http:\\morequestionsthananswers.con.

      There are plenty of reasons to be oppose violent Muslim extremists without having to resort to that kind of baloney. If you were really trying to make a valid point in good faith, Mashiki, you could have done so. Instead, you expose only yourself.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      So what? More people are killed every year by gun violence in the USA and no one dares complain about it.

    36. Re:Ah don't worry... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      I shall pray for the Almighty Admin Password.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    37. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Allah is not the only god in whose name atrocities have been committed and the Koran is not the only poorly written, poorly translated, self-contradictory book purportedly containing the One True God's Word that has been used to justify atrocities. I would agree that religions are usually silly and find it laughable that someone might single out Islam as the silliest one. Christianity -- with so much lip service given to peace and forgiveness -- is every bit as silly. Anyone remember the Crusades?

    38. Re:Ah don't worry... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      What's amazing is that only 40/year are in the US. So it is roughly 26 times more dangerous outside the US than inside? Closer inspection says it's .3/Million, which .3 * 7100M is approximately 2130/year, which is much closer but still almost double the 1173 reported here

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    39. Re:Ah don't worry... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

      So only Westerners qualify as people? If you read the news, there's terrorist attacks around the world on a weekly basis.
      But since that doesn't effect you, it must not count - else you'd have realized that terrorist related deaths are much higher.

      Also what constitutes terrorism? To me it's any act by a social conservative to scare others into behaving in a manner they deem fit.
      As such, acid attacks and rapes of non-veiled women are terrorism, honor killings are terrorism, mutilating or killing school children for trying to get an education is terrorism. And what of the gang killings in Mexico directed at bloggers or people who say not nice things about the cartels on their facebook walls? That's terrorism.

      Everyday it seems we see examples of people using violence to scare people from speaking out, living liberated lifestyles or educating themselves.

    40. Re:Ah don't worry... by Loopy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Might have been helpful to read the rest of the conversation about how most of the other religions (Christianity especially) have learned from their mistakes.

      Furthermore, nobody asserted Islam was the "silliest" of the bunch -- just the most lethal to non-believers.

    41. Re:Ah don't worry... by bhlowe · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Islam IS BY FAR the most backwards and violent religion. To suggest that other religions are somehow even in the running is ridiculous. Nobody "remembers" the crusades... unless you count the crusades happening today by Muslims. Prove it to yourself... If you can't find 20 violent Muslim atrocities for every non-muslim one, you just aren't trying. Or looking at the doctrine, find the worst Christian, Jewish or Buddhist practice, and see how it compares as it is practiced in Saudi Arabia.

    42. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Last time I checked, the United States allows capital punishment. Let's start with that atrocity and all those innocent men that have been exected in Texas. That sounds a bit like Saudi Arabia.

      Then let's move from that to the invasion of Iraq. I seem to recall that they named one of the invasions "Operation Just Crusade". That sounds like holy war stuff to me and we killed a hell of a lot more innocent people than were killed on 9/11.

      But obviously you aren't working from a reasoned viewpoint here. You are trying to back up your xenophobic convictions with some poor rhetoric and non-facts. Try again.

    43. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be surprised if anyone remembers the crusades. They happened hundreds of years ago. Have you got anything more recent?

    44. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 0

      My assertion is that Christianity has not learned from its mistakes as illustrated by increasingly destructive modern wars. While wars against people similar to us tend to be justified by ideological or political ideas, religion works just fine when they are sufficiently different. The invasion of Iraq was justified with a lot of rhetoric that blamed "religious extremism." Who is being more extreme? Iraq, who has no proven link to September 11 (an isolated event) or the United States who invades them while blaming religious extremism? Granted, the US is not uniformly Christian, but it was the Christian constituencies who were bellowing for the war. The US Muslims certainly weren't, so we mistrusted them and rounded them up.

      And, on a totally tangential note, what the hell is with the Catholic church continuing to ban birth control? Has it not occurred to anyone that populations that grow faster than their ability to support themselves tend to go to war?

      Christianity hasn't learned a thing. Everyone is still looking back to the Bible for all the answers and this book hasn't changed materially in a thousand years.

    45. Re:Ah don't worry... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It'd be interesting to know how many of the people killed were Muslims themselves. I'd guess a majority in any year. If a bomber blows up a couple dozen police recruits in an Iraqi city, we chalk those up as deaths due to Islamic terrorism, which strictly speaking they are, but they could just as easily chalked up a civil war deaths.

      There are 2.6 million Muslims in the US. That's a lot of people. If, say, 10% were what our media like to call "jihadis", that'd be 260,000 people living here who want to kill us because we're not Muslims. If 1% of those jihadis made at least one attempt each year, that'd be at least 2,600 domestic Islamic terror attacks. It'd be easy for them too. They live here, they know our weaknesses, often can pass as non-muslim if need be -- that's not counting their recent converts of European ancestry (we know converts are usually among the most zealous in any religion). They don't need Al Qaeda to teach them how to make bombs when they have the Internet.

      So how many people in the US have been killed since 9/11 by this fifth column? So far as I can see, none. If Muslim==terrorist, there should be thousands of people killed every year here. Probably tens of thousands killed a year. Why isn't anyone keeping track?

      How low does suspicion have to go before you chuck it out the window? 99.99%? Well that 1 in 10,000. Applied to the 2.6 million Muslims in the US, that's 260 American Muslim terrorists. That's almost surely too high, given the lack of any deaths in the US from home-grown Muslim terrorists, but let's go with that. Your chance of running into a Muslim terrorist here in the US is about the same (under these unfavorable assumptions) as bumping into a retired NASA astronaut.

      The idea that Islam somehow makes someone inclined to terror does not hold up if you control for circumstances (e.g. look at American Muslims).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    46. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this shit modded 'Insightful'? People killing other people is not the same as lightning killing people, I suppose to retards like you it would be ok for me to kill someone because 'hey lightning killed more people so don't bother with me until you've dealt with lightning'.

    47. Re:Ah don't worry... by bhlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ah, I see what you did.. you compared a country with a religion.. Not quite the assignment, but I can work with it.. Lets see, in Saudi Arabia, you can be executed by beheading, stoning, or firing squad. In the US, its primarlily lethal injection. In the US, capital punishment is reserved almost exclusively for murder. In Saudi Arabia, you can be executed for witchcraft, sorcery, adultery (between two consenting adults) drug use, or simply rejecting Islam.

      The war in Iraq was never a crusade, and "Operation Just Crusade" is never existed. (Feel free to prove otherwise.)

    48. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone remembers the Crusades. Unless you believe Indiana Jones.

    49. Re:Ah don't worry... by sapgau · · Score: 1

      +1
      Would read again!

    50. Re:Ah don't worry... by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

      It is not only the Muslims to worry about. Just remember that W. said that god told him to invade Iraq. He is a fundamentalist, fanatical nut as well and chances are he would favour creationism given a chance.

    51. Re:Ah don't worry... by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Interesting

      being in a shit-hole place with shit education where everyone has been miserably poor for centuries has much more to do with you being a violent scumbag than the particular batshit superstitions you subscribe to.

      actually, terrorists tend on average to be relatively wealthy and well-educated, from relatively well-to-do countries

    52. Re:Ah don't worry... by hguorbray · · Score: 1

      That's taking the short view -Christian Crusader's despicable treatment of Muslim's during the Crusades managed to single-handedly unify thousands of fragmented groups and tribes in their hatred of the Christian world -between that and The Great Game and supporting oligarchies such as Egypt, Saudi arabia, etc the western world has certainly done much to be deserving of the emnitiy of the Islamic world

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

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111931/ -highly recommended

      That said, just as with Evangelical Christians (and Crusaders) it is the extremists who cause the problems.

      -I'm just sayin'

    53. Re:Ah don't worry... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "More people get killed by lightning in a couple of months than from terrorism in the last few years."

      Not in Pakistan, A-stan, or Iraq.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    54. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 3, Informative

      I compared the United States to Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked, they are both countries. What's more, and somewhat interestingly, the United States sells an enormous amount of weaponry to Saudi Arabia and doesn't really give them a hard time about the human rights issues. We are complicit in the hegemony of the Saudi Royal family more than any other country in the world. One might say the US and SA are thick as thieves. My comparison of the two is meant as an analog to the religious issue because the United States is arguably the most Christian nation in the world and Saudi Arabia the most Islamic. The US is somewhat more diverse religion-wise, but is predominantly Christian. I believe the comparison is a fair one and the similarities (and political ties) are too extensive to be dismissed so easily.

      But, if you want to get technical, you have to admit that US Citizens can also be killed by the US government without any trial whatsoever. If you are not a US Citizen but happen to live in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen or Sudan or a variety of other places the United States has targeted, you can also be killed there via drone attack. Your flimsy assertion that one can only be killed "primarily by lethal injection" conveniently ignores the entire scope of death dealt out by agents of the United States government. Also, if you insist on focussing arbitrarily on the means of death meted out by our judicial system in the United States, then you must acknowledge that you can opt to be killed by lethal injection, hanging, electric chair, or firing squad in various US states. There is also some debate as to how painful (or terrifying) death by lethal injection might be. Until recently in Arkansas, the components of this deadly cocktail were determined at the discretion of the Department of Corrections and not by any objective standard of human decency or medical expertise.

      The war in Iraq was never a crusade

      What the hell does that mean to you exactly? The word "crusade" is infested with conflicting connotations. Most connotations I can discern seem entirely apt. I would argue it is remarkably similar to the original Crusades both in its rationale, its conception, and its results.

    55. Re:Ah don't worry... by khallow · · Score: 1

      That's taking the short view -Christian Crusader's despicable treatment of Muslim's during the Crusades managed to single-handedly unify thousands of fragmented groups and tribes in their hatred of the Christian world

      So what? As the poster pointed out, that was more than half a millennium ago. And I find it interesting that you claim Muslims still take that seriously. I doubt there's an atrocity that old which Christians would take as seriously as your Muslims allegedly do.

    56. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people were killed over the years in Northern Ireland? Or Christians in Argentina or Chile during the dictator years? Adjusted for population, of course. Oh, don't worry. I'm sure the numbers don't compare to whatever all-comprehensive Muslim statistic you've compiled. But if you're going to compare on the basis of statistics, at least compile for all religions, historical periods, and populations (e.g., if you're going to do a global compilation for Islam, do a global compilation for the other religions, and scale by number of adherents).

      It's not like other religions have clean hands when it comes to killing for faith, or other stupid arguments that have led to persecution over minor sectarian details. They all have had their problems despite most of them claiming to be peaceful or tolerant in one way or another, or at least supposedly having a prohibition on murder. Religion is a convenient excuse for all sorts of nuts who are simply fearful of people who are different from they are. But if you're going to tar all of Islam based on the tiny fraction of whackos that take lives in the name of their religion, then you aught to include similarly whacked-out fanatics that do it all the time in the name of other religions and ideals. I mean, if Islam is a fundamentally unique problem, then how do you explain anomalies such as Northern Island or the bizarre and ostensibly somewhat Christian Lord's Resistance Army in eastern Africa? And then there's the Crusades and the centuries of sectarian religious wars in Europe, now (mostly) died down, perhaps with the exception of parts of the former Yugoslavia (some of which was between Muslims and Christians, some of which was simply between different ethnic groups within similar religions). There have even been Buddhist terrorists, if you count fanatics that intertwined those beliefs with their whacked-out cults.

      Even adding all of those up, terrorism doesn't kill *that* many people a year compared to many other causes, such as plain-old non-religious wars and disease.

    57. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't it fleas of a thousand camels?

    58. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe non-violent, but still misogynistic, superstitious, homophobic, anti-science, etc. You get the point.

    59. Re:Ah don't worry... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Might have been. Early automatic transmission failure, and all that.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    60. Re:Ah don't worry... by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget that they scrubbed "muslim" off his grave. And other muslims in the region are expected to go out of their way to persecute them.

      This, incidentally, highlights a key point in understanding Wahhabism and Qutbism. However much you think that this particular brand of Islamism is a threat to the West, you're far more likely to be killed, persecuted or generally targeted by them if you're Muslim.

      To put it another way, the fact that Al Qaeda and the Taliban is far more of a threat to Islam than to anything else could be considered evidence that (mainstream) Islam is a religion of peace. That's why they hate it so much.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    61. Re:Ah don't worry... by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meanwhile, any muslim you meet in the states is almost certainly a non-violent person.

      Incidentally, that's also true of the Islamic world. If you are a Muslim, you are far more likely to be the victim of an Islamist terrorist than you are to be an Islamist terrorist or sympathiser thereof. That's partly because Islamist terrorists mostly target Muslims.

      The "religion of peace" also spawned the Arab Spring.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    62. Re:Ah don't worry... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      It'd be interesting to know how many of the people killed were Muslims themselves. I'd guess a majority in any year.

      If we're only counting Al Qaeda and its franchises, this is correct. They kill more Muslims than non-Muslims by around a factor of eight.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    63. Re:Ah don't worry... by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      Similarly, I'm finding Google Maps is letting me down more and more. I'll search for some business, and it won't show up at all, or it'll show me completely wrong locations, and I hate to admit it as much as I've loathed MS all these years, but Bing Maps will show me just what I'm looking for. It does seem like Google is losing focus and their quality is faltering in many places. Maybe I'm just cherry-picking examples where GM is failing (since normally I'll use it, and only revert to Bing if something seems amiss), but it seems like this is happening more and more lately.

    64. Re:Ah don't worry... by Pseudonym · · Score: 0

      The invasion of Iraq was justified with a lot of rhetoric that blamed "religious extremism."

      It was also justified with a lot of rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy", but for some reason we don't blame "freedom" or "democracy" for all the violence.

      Of course, in the right-wing echo chamber, all the talk about "freedom" and "democracy" went straight out of the window during the Arab Spring. Home-grown freedom and democracy movements were, all of a sudden, extremist plots. But that's a rant for another time.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    65. Re:Ah don't worry... by Livius · · Score: 1

      It scares me how historically accurate that is.

    66. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obama got a nobel peace prize, for what he said he would do, yet didnt..... than proceeded to drop drone attacks on numerous people... the nobel prizes dont mean shit these days

    67. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reminds me of scientology.

    68. Re:Ah don't worry... by hazah · · Score: 1

      Try Mexico.

    69. Re:Ah don't worry... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      I doubt there's an atrocity that old which Christians would take as seriously as your Muslims allegedly do.

      Ask any Serb when The Battle of Blackbird's Field was. Then meditate on the fact that the Serbian word for "blackbird's" is kosovo. Conclusions are left as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    70. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the sig, obama cant even do THAT right!

    71. Re:Ah don't worry... by bhlowe · · Score: 1

      You keep dodging the topic. First you say other religions are just as bad (or Islam not the silliest.) Then we're supposed to remember the crusades, but not mention the ethnic cleansing and forced conversions going on in Egypt, Sudan, the Philippines, Pakistan, etc.. Then you throw out a whopper about a fictitious "Operation Just Crusade" and cite it as evidence as a US war admitting the war is a crusade. (Care to explain that lie??) Then you suggest that Saudi and US capital punishment are comparable and ignore the inconvenient fact that Muslims execute people based on what they think, who they screw, or because they think someone is a witch.

      But my real beef with Islam is not that it is misinterpreted by a few 'extremists', but because when you interpret it perfectly and do exactly as the pedophile Mohamad did, you end up with millions of people enslaved to a system that they can't escape that treats women, minorities, and non-muslims as second class citizens... don't even get me started about jihad and the 72 raisins. but defend it all you want.. better yet, move to an Islamic paradise and tell me how it is..

    72. Re:Ah don't worry... by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 1

      293 Americans were killed by falling furniture in the United States between 2000 and 2010. Since 9/11, 238 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks.

      We get it. You're a bigot and you hate Muslims. Call me when you start a war on furniture.

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    73. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't read this, did you. That's not what it says at all.

    74. Re:Ah don't worry... by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, nice choice of source material. I'm sure that's entirely fair and well-considered.

      Yeah, well if you looked at the source material. You'd have seen that the source material is taken directly from...dun, dun, dun da, ta-da-ta...the news media. So unless you think that Reuters, AFI, AJE(Arab), and so on have this incredible bias to not report on the news. You're just being an idiot.

      Let's not forget, that while you're parroting your view on the "almost certainly" that a dozen muslims were arrested in the UK for planning terrorist attacks on the Olympics. And before that, 30 more were arrested for grooming young girls and prostituting them in slave like conditions. And in the US itself, you had a few cases of sudden Jihad syndrome, in Dearborne, where some tried to run some Christians over for having differing points of view(does it matter they were being assholes? not really.) And let's not forget Ft. Hood either, that one is still on-going, but despite what the media keeps telling you he was a muslim, and it was another homegrown terrorist attack.

      But let me ask you this, between Christians, Jews and Muslims can you tell me the difference between the three? The first two had reformations and keep their crazies in line. The last one actively persecutes their reformists as we see today, and as we see today, people are still supporting the crazies, and are railing against the reformers. I think you have more serious issues.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    75. Re:Ah don't worry... by khallow · · Score: 1
      Umm, so do you have an example coming? Last I checked Serbs were a pretty small nationality, not entirely Christian too, I might add, and not Christianity as a whole. Let me remind you what was written before:

      That's taking the short view -Christian Crusader's despicable treatment of Muslim's during the Crusades managed to single-handedly unify thousands of fragmented groups and tribes in their hatred of the Christian world -between that and The Great Game and supporting oligarchies such as Egypt, Saudi arabia, etc the western world has certainly done much to be deserving of the emnitiy of the Islamic world

      In other words, the Western world deserves "emnity" of all Muslims not just because of modern support of cruel regimes, but some pretty ancient stuff between parties, none of which still have serious power today.

      While I grant that there's some nominal Christians here who are mixing such historical evils into rationalizations for their own hatred, it's not a universal process of the "Christian world" any more than the "Muslim world" allegedly treats the Crusades.

      My view is that old evils are not to blame for modern ones, no matter the creed. But old evils can often be made into convenient propaganda tools to help create a supporting mythos. Everyone loves a good story after all, especially those that show them in a good light even if indirectly.

      Unless one is speaking of the rhetoric or propaganda approach of a particular group, it makes no sense to discuss ancient injustices as a rationalization for action today. All the parties involved are long dead and any modern injustices have no relation.

    76. Re:Ah don't worry... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Since 9/11 Americans, including conservatives, have learned a lot about politics in the Muslim world. If you ask the typical person who thought "liberating" Iraq was a great idea and that we'd be welcomed with roses and chocolates for toppling Saddam if they would still support it all, many of those people have changed their minds.

      So bringing up the lack of support for the Arab Spring, which has seen a massive increase in power for Islamists, as an apparent contradiction among conservatives is not proving what you think it does. All it proves is conservatives are not idiots and are not bound to believe the same things in perpetuity no matter how the consequences pan out.

    77. Re:Ah don't worry... by stdarg · · Score: 2

      Wait, your argument is that fighting against religious extremism is actually a form of religious extremism? That makes no sense. By your logic you can never have a non-religiously motivated conflict with religious people. That's the same crap religious zealots spout when they claim that every law that people try to apply to them is religious discrimination. They just can't fathom that there are *other reasons* that people don't like them or their behaviors.

    78. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead they should wipe the Black Nobel Peace Laureate as terrorist who killed Pakistan civilians!

    79. Re:Ah don't worry... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You are correct that many of the victims of Islamist terrorism are other Muslims. That is one of the key reasons that Al Qaeda lost so much support from the fighting in Iraq. Muslims in the heart of Islam could see up close what was happening, the vicious cruelty of the Islamists. To a Muslim, living under Sharia seems like a dream as they believe it will drive away the corruption, crime, and so many other problems that plague them in their day to day life. All that most of them need is a small taste of what Al Qaeda as in store with its interpretation of Sharia to realize that was a huge mistake. The same thing is happening in other Muslim nations. That doesn't mean that the Islamists won't win. The recent victories of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt show that. I doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will have the sensibilities of the Iraqi Shia Quietist movement, which is what gives the Iraqis a real chance of building a decent country.

      As to the United States - The call of Jihad is an ever present temptation to the Muslim young, and faithful. There are probably hundreds of young American Muslims whom have gone missing, and are now fighting in Somalia, Yemen, and other places. Some have tried to commit attacks in the US. Here is just a sample from a couple of months in the recent past. Fortunately the attacks themselves have been thwarted. American citizens may not always be so lucky.

      FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

      Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

      Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

      Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

      U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story

      Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

      Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery. Full Story

      FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

      1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa

      A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives. Full Story

      2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

      A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa. Full Story

      FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011

      Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center

      A former Los Angeles man pled guilt

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    80. Re:Ah don't worry... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      19,187 separate attacks? Can we get a citation for this? Or some methodology?

      4.75 attacks per day in the world is a lot? Hardly.

      You'll need to follow up on this yourself, but just to get you started.. . . .

      If memory serves me, there are at least 20 countries experiencing either an Islamist insurgency and/or terrorism include: India, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Yemen, and others.

      577 glorious pages of incidents at Iraq Body Count (The observant among you will notice that attacks against Iraqis haven't stopped despite the US pullout, so no, the war didn't end.

      Taliban Attacks 100 Times per Day

      Afghanistan: Update. Daily reporting from Afghanistan indicates the Taliban have sustained at least 100 attacks and security incidents per day since the start of the spring offensive. That is a high number for a group supposedly on the ropes.

      From 2010 - Afghanistan: 57 Insurgent Attacks a Day (the insufferable)

      Negotiations are certain to be part of the mix in any attempt to resolve the crisis. The military situation is getting worse. There were 400 attacks in the past week in Afghanistan, 60 percent of them by roadside bomb There were over 1,000 roadside bomb attacks in April 2010, twice as many as in April 2009.

      This number of attacks per day, some 57, about 34 of them roadside bombs, is breathtaking. That level of violence is what characterized Iraq in March, 2005, before the Sunni-Shiite civil war. The year 2005 was a bloody year in Iraq, and nobody but then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld doubted we were mired in a vicious guerrilla war.

      That is only two countries out of the many marked by Islamist violence. What about Thailand?

      Terrorism in South Thailand

      Looking at the Thai news, one can notice that almost every day people are being killed or injured due to terrorist attacks in South Thailand. Federal Foreign Offices around the world warn tourists to visit these areas because of mortal danger

      That doesn't include Iran's attempts to kill Israeli diplomats in Thailand, as they have in various other nations in the last several months.

      Pity the Yezhidi.
      The Vanishing Yezidi of Iraq

      The worst incident occurred on August 14, 2007, when four coordinated truck bombs exploded in two Yezidi villages, killing at least 500 people and wounding more than 1,500. It was the second deadliest terrorist attack in world history after 9/11.

      Of course there are plenty more mass casualty attacks. I'll leave that as an exercise for you. You could check out the Bali bombing, the 7/7 bombing, the Madrid bombing, plenty of markets being bombed in Iraq.

      The US has been fortunate in that it has been able to foil many attempts by would-be Jihadis, but sadly not all, including the "workplace violence" of Major Hasan at Fort Hood (13 dead, 31 wounded). (May Justice be done upon him.)

      Just a few recent reports from the US:
      FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

      Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    81. Re:Ah don't worry... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The "religion of peace" also spawned the Arab Spring.

      It wasn't the religion that spawned it. It was downtrodden people throwing off dictators.

    82. Re:Ah don't worry... by Genda · · Score: 1

      An ancient crooner from the 1930s and 40s known for his "On the Road to" movies with Bob Hope, aka. Der Bingle.

    83. Re:Ah don't worry... by teg · · Score: 1

      Allah is not the only god in whose name atrocities have been committed and the Koran is not the only poorly written, poorly translated, self-contradictory book purportedly containing the One True God's Word that has been used to justify atrocities. I would agree that religions are usually silly and find it laughable that someone might single out Islam as the silliest one. Christianity -- with so much lip service given to peace and forgiveness -- is every bit as silly. Anyone remember the Crusades?

      I don't see any reasons why the crusades have gotten a bad rep, while the Islamist expansion that originally conquered these territories - and later Constantinople, the Balkans and even treatening Vienna - are different.

      That being said, Christianity has a history of killing people it disagrees with - Hypathia, Jan Hus, Mary I, the thirty years war, witch burnings and the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre are just a few examples of this.

      However, the reformation, the renaissance and renaissance humanism caused a loss of religious influence, a more tolerant society and progress in the West.

      Islam was much more tolerant and forward looking for the first half of it's excistence after Muhammed invented it, but a combination of external events - Western trade routes by sea, Mongolian attacks, internal strife - and a more fundamentalist approach to religion ended this.

    84. Re:Ah don't worry... by Genda · · Score: 1

      Have a ball... a short collection of the best of Carnac the Magnificent!...

      May a crazed weightlifter clean and jerk your sister.
      May the winds of the Sahara blow a desert scorpion up your turban.
      May the swami of Bagdad squat on your fez.
      May you fall asleep under a camel with post nasal drip.
      May a swarm of gay chiggers open a disco on your grandfather.
      May your only son become a Pointer Sister.
      May a camel chip float in your martini.
      May you be forced to visit a near-sighted proctologist.
      May a diseased yak squat in your hot tub.
      May the sewage of a diabetic rabi back into your malto meal

    85. Re:Ah don't worry... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      By definition any country that is experiencing an insurgency, civil war, civil uprising or state of war with another country cannot be counted as having had a "terrorist" attack.
      Remember that the appartheid government used to call the anti-appartheid activists "terrorists" as well - that view held even LESS water because they were in a state of war at the time (that was merely a civil component to the international war with Cuba on the Namibian border).

      So discount all the arab spring deaths, all the insurgencies and the like - and THEN recount. It's not terrorism if you rebel against your government (much as governments like to call it that), even if it is on religious grounds. It's a lot of things (and if it targets civilians none of them are good) but it's by definition NOT terrorism.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    86. Re:Ah don't worry... by Genda · · Score: 1

      To hell with the gun violence, what about the imbeciles in Utah target practicing in a fire hazard area, causing a devastating fire that burns thousands of acres of forest and a number of homes... and the local constables won't press charges because they refuse to take on the local gun lobbies. We live in a time of mouth-breathing idiots, and they are the norm.

    87. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Christianity and the other One True Religions (TM) aren't causing nearly as much damage as Islam today. It's a duct tape solution, but since we aren't about to fix humanity anytime soon, we might as well do what we can.

      Or I guess we can just go exterminate all believers. That sounds like a major improvement!

    88. Re:Ah don't worry... by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >you end up with millions of people enslaved to a system that they can't escape that treats women, minorities, and non-muslims as second class citizens

      That sounds completely indistinguishable from fundamentalist Christian conservatives in the United States today - Santorum style. The ONLY difference is that in the United States they are constrained by two factors: a constitution that prohibits religious interference with the law, and the fact that they can't ever get elected. They are a massive group - just not big ENOUGH.

      Even so - Rush Limbaugh style conservatives love to call women whores for using birth control.

      I fail to see how Islam is in any way unique.

      All religions have their crazy fundamentalists and they are almost ALWAYS a minority but whenever those fundamentalists happen to get into positions of power - they abuse them according to their fundamentalism. Islam currently has some countries where this is the case.
      The major reason the west went for secular states however is because EXACTLY THE SAME THING used to happen there until we did.

      If you let religions dictate laws, you get atrocities, it doesn't matter WHICH religion. Hell the Budhists of Tibet used to practise a form of mass slavery and call it "karma" and Budhism is probably the most rational and peaceful religion ever concieved.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    89. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is no different from the US. For example, there's no way anyone could be elected without at least claiming they are a Christian--regardless of party affiliation. Also, since it's just occurred: Same thing happened with Alan Turing, right? Thanks for breaking codes in WW2, inventing the computer, and being all around awesome. What? You're homosexual? Die.

    90. Re:Ah don't worry... by gtall · · Score: 2

      If you are referring to the Muslim Brotherhood, think again. Mostly it was every day folk getting fed up by comparing what they can see from the intertubes and satellite TV vs. what they experience at home. The only organized resistance in most of those countries does tend to be the Muslim Brotherhood but they have been mostly going with the flow hoping to gain political power when the dust settles. And the jury is still out as to whether allowing the MB to run the show means true freedom (freedom of religion, freedom of women, freedom for minorities, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from the MB, etc.).

      Islam believes power comes from Allah and Democracy holds power comes from the People.

      Now for my own bias is that this conflict (Allah and Democracy) is unreconciliable. And pointing to Turkey doesn't cut it for me, the Islamists in that country are slowing taking control of everything. Given them another 10 years and their control will be complete and irrevocable.

      I also believe that MB will only shield the people from their true dictatorial nature long enough to put a new straight-jacket on the Muslims dumb enough to believe them. After that, there will be no true freedom for the people to choose a different political party. Minorities will be abused, un-Sunni sects will be discriminated against or forced out of the home countries. The economics MB seem to profess is a brand of state control of anything big enough that to control it means to keep a chunk of power. The Arabs will rue the day they let MB's nose under the tent.

    91. Re:Ah don't worry... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Islam was only forward looking in the first half of its existence if you ignore the Muslim armies that conquered from N. Africa to India and threatened to do the same for Europe. You had the choice to live and pay taxes or convert or die. They weren't too particular about which you picked.

    92. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in eqypt, the protests were started by secular egyptians. The religionists came later.

    93. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did I forget to mention THIS recent mass murder, by muslims:

      http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/07/08/two-politicians-killed-in-central-nigeria/

      You're an IDIOT of the highest order- the kind of arrogant, leftwing moron who denies reality because you don't like the truth, and seeks to silence anybody else who dares to mention the truth - you moron.

      Muslims regard all non-muslims as the scum of the Earth, to be converted to their shitty cult, or to BE KILLED, moron.

      Anybody with a brain is a threat to muslims - a five year old child can demolish their bullshit 'religion' in one minute, just by asking simple questions. Muslims HATE questions, and HATE thinking.

      I just can't believe that you actually wrote: "Meanwhile, any muslim you meet in the states is almost certainly a non-violent person." What planet are you living on?

    94. Re:Ah don't worry... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      I notice google will return different results based on the computer I launch a search from.
      Dump your cookies and try again OR never dump your cookies and let it get to know you so it can serve up what you want( in theory anyway). I think you can sign into chrome and it just keeps personalizing the hell out of everything.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    95. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's get this thread back on track...

      May the flies of a million camels infest Pakistan and all the other ass backward hateful scumbag countries infected by Islam.
      See, it works!
      Now how do we curse $cientology?

    96. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to school with Sadjit Badat (one of the shoe bombers). It was one of the best schools in the area, he was quite a bright kid, and I never recall him being violent or agressive in school in any way. None of that stopped him from deciding to organise a plot to blow up a plane.

    97. Re:Ah don't worry... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Tsk tsk. You mistake the attitude of a few scumbags with the rest of the population of the country. Consider: in the US, it's the oil-sucking scumbags that decided to play chess with US Soldier's lives in battle with a very tiny fraction of scumbags in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      There are lots of governments with dolts. It's the dolts we're after.

      May their toilets stop up.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    98. Re:Ah don't worry... by donaldm · · Score: 1

      What's Bing?

      That is the sound made by a very expensive machine. See Bing :)

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    99. Re:Ah don't worry... by donaldm · · Score: 1

      Depending on what stats you're using, between 18,000 and 24,000 people die every year from lightening strikes.

      The above is actually called an "Act of God" or just plane stupidity when standing under a tree during a lightning storm. I would not call murder by terrorist an "Act of God" although I am quite sure those people believe they represent God.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    100. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, its hard to be a terrorist when you can't buy a gun|bomb|plane ticket|car to act with.

    101. Re:Ah don't worry... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So your entire argument is how much worse the other guy is?

      Please tell me you are trolling. Difference in degree is not much of a difference at all.

    102. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More honestly, the civilization supporting Christianity learned from its mistakes.

      Modern western philosophy is more rooted in enlightenment principles than Christian ones. Sure, it's been influenced, but the spread of democracy and the concept of the rights of man is a secular one, not a religious one. We need to remember that this whole idea is only a few hundred years old, and the widespread idea of spreading it to everyone (not just people who looked like you and followed your religion) is even younger.

      It isn't Islam that the problem. It's that the world under Islam is still operating in many cases on a more primitive culture that hasn't fully absorbed enlightenment principles yet.

    103. Re:Ah don't worry... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      This from an anti-Muslim hate site. No supporting citations to their numbers, but they promise to "supply sources upon request"

      You know tha'ts funny, because you can source it yourself. Go take the last 30 attacks, and you'll find every single one of them in the new media, from Reuters, to AFI. Go on, I'll wait.

      I've made my point, the point is, like many other people you're ignoring the blood that's being written on the ground today like many other people. And in the worst case, like many liberals you're burying your head in the sand, how's that whole "let's slaughter all the christians in Darfur" thing going on these days? Some nice Muslim purges going on I hear. Wait...not news, they're Christian. How about that blogger from the Maldives, who had his throat slashed because he wanted more political and religious freedom? Hear about that one? Probably not, he's on the run and seeking asylum. And of course you're welcome to believe whatever you want. How about those no-go zones in France, Norway and Sweden that the police no longer patrol, because they're now ethnic religious enclaves, and they want to avoid riots.

      So at the end of the day, you're free to think whatever you want. But the reality is, you're just burying your head in the sand like many other people, while believing that the religion of peace is a religion of peace. While members run around blowing up, people, things, strapping bombs on children, refusing to follow the laws of the land wherever they go. Feel free to look in the US with various mega mosque projects--I believe eric allen bell had a recent story on that one, and is still doing a documentary on it. Wonder what made that hardwing leftwing guy go full-on anti-muslim as you would put it? Why not go be a Jew for a day in Toulouse, France and come back. If you survive the attacks by the muslims. I'll wait on that one too. Well, you probably will, they're only beating people nearly unconscious. Wait, let me guess...that's a *cultural* problem. As for exposing myself? Nah. I'll stand behind what I say.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    104. Re:Ah don't worry... by Full+Metal+Jackass · · Score: 1

      I've just had a read through http://thereligionofpeace.com/ and I see no justification for calling it "an anti-Muslim hate site". It doesn't advocate hatred of anyone and explicitly makes a distinction between Muslims and Islamic ideology.

      Pointing out that the Koran is largely a hateful diatribe targeted at non-believers and women and is the probable source of much suffering is not an act of hatred. It seems more like an act of social responsibility.

    105. Re:Ah don't worry... by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember the Crusades?

      I think it says something that the example that springs most readily to your mind of Christian violence happened almost a thousand years ago. Of course, there are some more recent examples you can find, but historically, Chrisitianity has been peaceful almost all of it's history.

      One could also point out that the Crusades were partly in response to the militant expansion of Islam throughout much of the Mediterranean world, and into Europe. Not that I think that everything that happened during the Crusades was justified, but when a people feel threatened by a foreign power which is militarily expanding (and yes, this would apply to the U.S./NATO in the current day too), they do have some right to respond militarily themselves to defend their lands and people.

    106. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely correct. In fact, being an engineer is a leading indicator of whether you have terrorist ambitions. All those rigid, grand theories of human history, I suppose.

    107. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secular dictators.

    108. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual terrorist attacks, or insurgency against occupiers or straight out warfare? Are acts of war "terrorism" if Muslims commit them?

    109. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe we had shed-loads of (non-Muslim) terrorists for decades, without any anti-Catholic (over IRA, ETA) or anti-Communist (over RAF, others) that come close to matching the anit-Muslim feelings espoused by hatemongers these days. Or much of security theater (except perhaps in London and Madrid themselves).

      But yeah, I am still waiting for the War on Drunk Driving if the number of deaths is a driving factor.

    110. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should the conquering armies be ignored? Military knowhow is certainly forward looking. "Live and pay taxes" seemed to be the fate for non-Christians in Christian Europe as well. Except non-believers were largely killed instead (or "wrong-believers", ref. the Inquisition and the Reform wars.)

    111. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Khan is also a well noted scholar of the works of Herman Melville.

      Khan!!!!!!!!!!

    112. Re:Ah don't worry... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Ghandi once famously said "I like Jesus but I don't care much for Christians". The thing is, it isn't the religion that's violent, its the people running it.

      However, I'd say Hinduism, Bhuddism, and Christianity are the true religions of peace, even though I've had Bhuddists point pistols at me and there are so-called "Christians" who shoot abortion doctors. Nothing in Bhuddism of Christianity condones these actions, in fact it's the opposite.

      You could look at Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry and conclude that Christianity is a religion of murder*, adultery, and divorce. These men don't follow Christ's teachings, and I would guess the same could be said for Muslim terrorists.

      * Texas executes more men than any other state. Governors can stop executions.

    113. Re:Ah don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " how many people in the US have been killed since 9/11 by this fifth column? So far as I can see, none."

      That's because your head is up your ass.

      Signed,
      Thirteen at Ft. Hood.

    114. Re:Ah don't worry... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You know tha'ts funny, because you can source it yourself. Go take the last 30 attacks, and you'll find every single one of them in the new media, from Reuters, to AFI.

      So then why didn't your muslim hate site do that?

      Sorry, man, when you cite a hate site, your argument becomes null and void.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    115. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      I mentioned the Crusades mostly because they were an utterly cynical attempt to extract treasure from the Middle East while using a religious justification. The Gulf War is not really that different. Because the Crusades were so long ago, people are more willing to admit to the fairly cynical, selfish -- and evil -- motivations for it.

    116. Re:Ah don't worry... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I've just had a read through http://thereligionofpeace.com/ and I see no justification for calling it "an anti-Muslim hate site". It doesn't advocate hatred of anyone and explicitly makes a distinction between Muslims and Islamic ideology.

      The header of the website, the biggest font on the page, says, "The politically incorrect truth about Islam, one really messed up religion".

      Full Metal Jackass, as I said, there are plenty of reasons to criticize violent fundamentalist Islam. The site you reference doesn't do that, it smears all Muslims. Here's what you said,

      ...the Koran is largely a hateful diatribe targeted at non-believers and women...

      This is a feature of all Abrahamic religions. Fortunately, most Jews and Christians have learned to disregard a very large part of their own scripture. Stoning a woman to death for adultery is not a Muslim innovation.

      Yes, that site is a hate site. If you want to make a good faith point about Islamic terrorism, you don't have to go to a hate site to do it. And as I've said, when you do, it negates your entire argument.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    117. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      Long before you talk about the Crusades, you can talk about the Hebrews taking Egypt from the prior inhabitants after leaving Egypt. All of these movements are more or less violent and, to some extent, all should get a bad rap for that reason. More recent examples tend not to be recognized for what the really are which is violent human responses to environmental and social pressures. E.g., settlers leave Europe for North America and more or less exterminate indigenous peoples from 1492 to the 20th century. Jews, fleeing the genocide perpetrated in Europe in WWII return to their "homeland" which they lost to the Assyrians roughly 2700 years ago.

      In my mind, the best counterargument to the "enlightened Christian" thesis is obviously the invasion of Iraq. U.S. politicians did a bunch of fear mongering about non-existent WMDs and "religious extremism" to stir up some home-grown religious extremism which lent political support to a cynical war. There was nothing noble about the Iraq war. It's just too recent for us to admit this.

    118. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      ER, I meant Hebrews taking the land of *Israel* from the prior inhabitants after leaving Egypt.

    119. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      Nice xenophobic oversimplification. Muslim Arabs advanced mathematics, surgery, art, astronomy, etc. during the Islamic Golden Age. They recently built the world's tallest building (or rather they paid migrant workers to build it). They have a ski slope in a mall in the middle of the desert.

    120. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. My argument is that religious extremism is a very good way of whipping up hatred between different groups if you want them to fight each other. My preferred idea of "fighting" against religious extremism is to point out how stupid it is, not to kill people.

      And you can in fact have non-religiously motivated warfare -- WWI and WWII were not religious in their conception. They were nationalistic.

    121. Re:Ah don't worry... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      As if "human decency" had anything to do with killing people. Right.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    122. Re:Ah don't worry... by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      I will say again that Islam is not the silliest. That would have to be Scientology. But we are getting off track and ignoring the fact that "silly" is a subjective impression. There is no absolute silliness scale.

      And what topic am I dodging exactly? I think all religions are fairly silly but have tremendous respect for their social consequences which are both positive and negative. The reason for singling out the Crusades (both ancient and the Iraq invasion) was to refute the assertion that Christians are somehow better than Muslims today or ever. I was raised Christian but believe it's more important to recognize the reality that people are born into groups they did not choose and are only able to escape the superstitions of that group by becoming educated and recognizing what is actually going on in the world. We try to justify our wars in philosophical or political ways because we have that luxury. Where resources are more tight, people are less educated and act more primitively and savagely. Despite our luxury of resources and philosophical ponderings, we still kill lots of innocent people. How the fuck are we "better" than them?

    123. Re:Ah don't worry... by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      More people get killed by lightning in a couple of months than from terrorism in the last few years.

      But many more people are still being routinely murdered, for reasons other than terrorism (as it were).

      --
      /* No Comment */
    124. Re:Ah don't worry... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      We live in a time of mouth-breathing idiots, and they are the norm.

      You seem to imply that this is a relatively new phenomenon. I think there is ample evidence in the historical record that epochs need not be factored in.
      What has changed is that ubiquity in published communication results in this noise-floor being recorded rather than gated/compressed out.

    125. Re:Ah don't worry... by Full+Metal+Jackass · · Score: 1
      I think it's reasonable to look at more than the first page of a site before categorically denouncing it. This is from the "hate site" on the page entitled How We Feel About Muslims.

      Islam is an ideology. It is not defined by what any Muslim wants it to be, but rather by what it is. No ideology is above critique, particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet.

      Muslims are individuals. We passionately believe that no Muslim should be harmed, harassed, stereotyped or treated any differently anywhere in the world solely on account of their status as a Muslim.

      You said:

      Fortunately, most Jews and Christians have learned to disregard a very large part of their own scripture. Stoning a woman to death for adultery is not a Muslim innovation.

      The point isn't who invented it, the point is who's still doing it. Jews and Christians don't stone women to death for adultery now.

      The fact that this still goes on in non-secular Islamic countries in full compliance with Islamic scripture does make Islam "one really messed up religion".

    126. Re:Ah don't worry... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This from an anti-Muslim hate site. No supporting citations to their numbers, but they promise to "supply sources upon request". Instead of each item linking to some citation, they link to other pages on the anti-Muslim hate site that says the exact same thing as the item.

      I decided to test your assessment. I took the first six news items they listed:

      The List of Islamic Terror Attacks from 2012
      2012.06.18 Pakistan Quetta 5 69 Five Shiite students are blown to bits by Taliban bombers.
      2012.06.18 Afghanistan Tagab 6 13 At least six locals are exterminated when religious extremists detonate a bomb at a bazaar.
      2012.06.17 Nigeria Trikania 5 40 A Shahid suicide car bomber crashes through a church gate and blows up at least five Christians.
      2012.06.17 Iraq Fallujah 6 12 Two children are among six slain by Jihadi bombers.
      2012.06.17 Nigeria Zaria 34 125 Holy Warriors walk into two church services and detonate, leaving over thirty worshipers dead in the carnage, including at least ten children.
      2012.06.16 Pakistan Landi Kotal 26 65 Sharia advocates detonate a truck bomb amid a crowd at a market, sending over twenty-six souls to Allah.

      And this is what I found after a minute or less of Google news search for each - reasonable evidence for each of the six items listed.

      Pakistan Bus Bombing Kills Students In Quetta
      Blast in French-controlled Afghan town kills six
      Islamists Bomb Three Churches in Kaduna State, Nigeria
      Iraq bombings kill four, wound 32
      At least 50 dead in three Nigeria church bombings, reprisal attacks
      Around the World

      Now then, the links below are from a side bar labeled "News" on the front page. Apparently the sites you complain about as being hate sites include Reuters, the BBC, the CS Monitor, The Telegraph, the Emirates 24/7, and other lesser lights. In short, you are full of baloney - to be polite about it.

      Massachusetts Man Pleads Guilty in Toy Plane Bomb Plot...
      Kenyan Muslims Help Guard Churches Following Attacks...
      British Muslims Accused of Plotting EDL Massacre...
      Islamists Pool Forces to Kill African Christians...
      Iran Seeks to Legalize Marriage for Girls Under 10...
      Clerics in Egypt Call for Pyramids to be Destroyed...
      (Egypt) Unaccompanied Woman Spotted on Train, Quickly Raped...
      Sword-Wielding Imam and Wife Brought Down by Police...

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    127. Re:Ah don't worry... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      By definition any country that is experiencing an insurgency, civil war, civil uprising or state of war with another country cannot be counted as having had a "terrorist" attack.

      If it is a terrorist attack it is a terrorist attack, even if there is an insurgency, civil war, civil uprising, or state of war with another country. The United States is still technically at war with North Korea - 9/11 was still a terrorist attack. There are still Arab countries technically at war with Israel - when a suicide bomber blows himself up in an Israeli pizza parlor it is still a terrorist attack. Iraq is still facing an insurgency from Sunni nationalists - when Al Qaeda blows up a car bomb in a marketplace it is still a terrorist attack.

      You are correct - it isn't terrorism to rebel against a government, but anti-government rebels can engage in terrorism. Various anti-apartheid guerilla movements did conduct terrorist attacks. The Viet Cong often engaged in terrorism and atrocity, such as the during the Battle for Hue.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    128. Re:Ah don't worry... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The United States is still technically at war with North Korea - 9/11 was still a terrorist attack.

      Now you're being facetious, 9/11 wasn't done by North Korea. If it had been, it would not be a terrorist attack, just an attack. Or would you suggest that the London Blitz was a terrorist attack too because so many civilians got killed ?
      If so, then the US government are the biggest terrorist organisation in the world.

      >There are still Arab countries technically at war with Israel - when a suicide bomber blows himself up in an Israeli pizza parlor it is still a terrorist attack

      Not if he is acting on orders from another government, or if he is deliberately trying to replace one government with another. The latter is called a "revolution". Though of course, the governments being revolted against tend to call it terrorism. Or are you now going to suggest that it's reasonable to call the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism ?

      > Iraq is still facing an insurgency from Sunni nationalists - when Al Qaeda blows up a car bomb in a marketplace it is still a terrorist attack.

      Insurgency is not terrorism. That's why it's called insurgency.

      >but anti-government rebels can engage in terrorism.
      Only if they deliberately target civilians. Which is something that even proper armed forces sometimes do - even though they claim to try not to.

      > The Viet Cong often engaged in terrorism and atrocity, such as the during the Battle for Hue.
      And the use of napalm carpet-bombing by the USA was NOT terrorism ?

      It's been said that the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is whose side your on. There's some truth to that.

      Either way, I don't consider 95% of the deaths in Iraq, Syria and similar nations to be Jihadi terrorism, that's just warfare. Ugly, terrible warfare - but what other kind has there ever been ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    129. Re:Ah don't worry... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      [nationalreview.com]

      That answered my questions.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    130. Re:Ah don't worry... by Sociable+Scientician · · Score: 1

      The important part is that, being in a shit-hole place with shit education where everyone has been miserably poor for centuries has much more to do with you being a violent scumbag than the particular batshit superstitions you subscribe to.

      The closest thing to a controlled experiment that we have in this regard is Nigeria. In the north of Nigeria, homosexuality is punishable by the death penalty, while in the south, it is not. Can you guess the key demographic difference between north and south?

    131. Re:Ah don't worry... by Sociable+Scientician · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, that's also true of the Islamic world. If you are a Muslim, you are far more likely to be the victim of an Islamist terrorist than you are to be an Islamist terrorist or sympathiser thereof. That's partly because Islamist terrorists mostly target Muslims.

      This just isn't factually correct. A Pew research poll shows that across 7 Muslim countries, support for Al Qaeda ranges from 3% to 49%, support for Hamas from 9% to 60%, and support for Hezbollah from 5% to 55%. In those same countries, between 20% and 46% of Muslims say "suicide bombing and other acts of violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" are justified. At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion. Majorities of Muslims in Jordan and Nigeria also favor these harsh punishments.

    132. Re:Ah don't worry... by jakoye · · Score: 0

      "So how many people in the US have been killed since 9/11 by this fifth column? So far as I can see, none."

      Obviously you're not paying attention. Fort Hood shootings ring a bell? Forgotten about the (thwarted, thank Allah) Times Square bomber already? There have been other plots that have been busted up before they could be executed. If you don't know this, then your head is firmly in the sand and we cannot help you.

      --
      Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
    133. Re:Ah don't worry... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i can see the 14 million tax euros billary came a swiping here will be put to good use. good things our 100% more unemployed (since last year) will be so grateful they donated the money to afghanistan.Excellent, carry on, billary

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    134. Re:Ah don't worry... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The "religion of peace" also spawned the Arab Spring."

      Its adherents fought and fight in the Arab Spring, against other adherents of the same superstition.

      There being very few protagonists in the Arab Spring who are not Muslim, it's a wash.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    135. Re:Ah don't worry... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll grant you Ft. Hood, although arguably that's a workplace shooting. The Times Square bombing didn't happen, so it doesn't count. The point is with the millions of Muslims here if Muslim==terrorist there should be hundreds, if not thousands of deaths per year. There isn't.

      My point is the fear is hysterical. People are much more likely to call the Muslim Brotherhood an "Islamic Terrorist Group", than they are to call the KKK a "Christian Terrorist Group", although that is more accurate.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    136. Re:Ah don't worry... by jakoye · · Score: 0

      Fort Hood was not just a "workplace shooting", it was a shooting by a Muslim who was getting advice from a known jihadist preacher (who was later killed in a US drone strike).

      You cannot say that plots that were stopped in time to prevent deaths "do not count". That is entirely absurd. If someone tried to take your life, but failed, would you go on about your day, since the person didn't succeed in killing you?

      And the reason for all this "hysteria" is because America suffered 3,000 casualties IN A SINGLE DAY to a terrorist attack perpetuated by Muslims. It is right and proper to be "hysterical" (though I would term it as "vigilant").

      As for the KKK, they are most certainly an evil group, but thankfully nearly completely powerless. Have KKK members killed anyone in the last 20-30 years? I can't think of any incidents. There's simply no rational equivalence between Muslim terrorists and the KKK (but I do agree with you that "Christian terrorist group" would be a correct designation for them).

      --
      Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
    137. Re:Ah don't worry... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Of course, there are some more recent examples you can find, but historically, Chrisitianity has been peaceful almost all of it's history.

      Of course, that's laughable when you look past the selective accounting. Any violence committed by someone who happens to be muslim == Islamic Violence. Any violence committed by Christians - KKK, IRA, the Mafia, Vietnam War, Iraq Invasion, etc - is Totally Unrealted To Their Religion And How Dare You For Asking.

    138. Re:Ah don't worry... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You keep dodging the topic.

      You mean people keep shooting down your naked Islamophobia, and you're getting poutraged over it.

      Then we're supposed to remember the crusades, but not mention the ethnic cleansing and forced conversions going on in Egypt, Sudan, the Philippines, Pakistan, etc.

      The invasion of Iraq led to the deaths of a million Iraqis, and created millions more refugees. You sure you want to keep throwing stones in your bigoted glass house?

    139. Re:Ah don't worry... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      If you are referring to the Muslim Brotherhood [...]

      I wasn't. I was referring, as you correctly surmised, to the "everyday folks" who also happened to be almost all Muslim.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  2. Soon to be -1... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's coming soon to the U.S. Don't think they want this sort of thing to happen to Texas schoolbooks.

    1. Re:Soon to be -1... by aBaldrich · · Score: 2

      It already is in the U.S. It's called democracy. If 51% of the population wants this, they get it. They can be wrong, but it's their choice.

      --
      In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    2. Re:Soon to be -1... by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's coming soon to the U.S. Don't think they want this sort of thing to happen to Texas schoolbooks.

      Texas, Kansas and perhaps another few states. Radical fundamentalism isn't just for Muslims and it's no stranger to setting progress back throughout history.

      OK, the moons I saw around Jupiter were going around the Earth, too.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Soon to be -1... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The US isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. There are limits to what the majority can get. Slavery isn't coming back without a constitutional amendment, and that's hard enough to get for things most people think are probably reasonable policies but don't want in the Constitution itself.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:Soon to be -1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wondered how long it would take for someone to try to take the attention off the matter at hand and turn it around on the US. Wow. Just wow.

    5. Re:Soon to be -1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you can find any books by 'Dawkins, C. Richard" in Texas school libraries. Perhaps in the "Restricted Session" together with works by "Darwin, Charles R."

    6. Re:Soon to be -1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Republic is the way the government is structured (with division of power between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches), while democracy is a way to decide who gets to rule. You do not need a republic to have democracy, nor democracy to have a republic. You're right in that democracy doesn't equals majority rule.

    7. Re:Soon to be -1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are limits to what the majority can get. Slavery isn't coming back without a constitutional amendment

      so what you are saying is slavery could come back...and basically anything else the majority wants it could get, all it needs to do is change the constitution. if a large enough majority wants it, that is just a small speed bump. so in other words the majority pretty much can get anything it wants.

    8. Re:Soon to be -1... by brit74 · · Score: 2

      Not in the US! I mean religious in the US would never downplay the contributions of deists ( http://www.dailypaul.com/128828/texas-yanks-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard ) or exaggerate the religiosity of other founding fathers ( http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/Lies%20for%20Jesus%20and%20Christiaity.htm http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/09/you-know-david-barton-has-a-re/ ), and then used that fictional history to complain about how we're moving away from what the founding fathers wanted for the United States.

    9. Re:Soon to be -1... by Quila · · Score: 1

      This is where adhering to the Constitution would be cool. It would stop something like this as a simple majority in its tracks. You'd need 75% to push it through.

      But years of a liberal interpretation of the Constitution as a "living" document means that all we need is 51% in Congress and a majority of nine judges to make it happen.

      So, for a gay liberal who cheered the recent opinion on Obamacare, remember that when you're up for execution for being homosexual.

    10. Re:Soon to be -1... by starless · · Score: 1

      The US isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

      No, it's a liberal democracy!

    11. Re:Soon to be -1... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Whaddaya mean, coming soon?
      Thomas Jefferson removed from Texas history standards

      The reason they decided to de-emphasize Jefferson was that he coined the phrase "separation of church and state". They replaced him with St Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:Soon to be -1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And hatred of people who are different isn't just for the Klan any more.

    13. Re:Soon to be -1... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      So, for a gay liberal who cheered the recent opinion on Obamacare, remember that when you're up for execution for being homosexual.

      What about us straight people who cheer the opinion?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:Soon to be -1... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Indeed - extremes are generally bad when it comes to people. Religious beliefs are not exempt from this.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Soon to be -1... by vlm · · Score: 2

      The reason they decided to de-emphasize Jefferson was that he coined the phrase "separation of church and state".

      Well, that's the reported excuse. Journalists...

      I suspect the real reason for the hatred towards Jefferson is the famous Jefferson Bible. Jefferson and his bible has gotta be a kick in the nuts for the mythological belief in the founding fathers being hard core fundamentalists.

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

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    16. Re:Soon to be -1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh screw you. Compairing Kansas to Packistan? I'm so tired of hearing people that see a sound bite on TV proceed to go on an atheist rage against Kansas. Guess what, there's plenty of godless heathens in Kansas that would take your life and not feel a bit of remorse over it.

    17. Re:Soon to be -1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it would be hypocritical of us to sneer at Pakistan and at the same time, act all superior like this kind of thing couldn't happen in the U.S. Some of us don't want to be hypocritical.

    18. Re:Soon to be -1... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Government class failure. Please tell us the name of your Government class teacher so that we may soundly beat him for producing an ignoramus like you.

      --
      Good-bye
    19. Re:Soon to be -1... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      So, for a gay liberal who cheered the recent opinion on Obamacare, remember that when you're up for execution for being homosexual.

      What about us straight people who cheer the opinion?

      You will be executed for being a communist the next time the parties change.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    20. Re:Soon to be -1... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2

      or exaggerate the religiosity of other founding fathers ( http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/Lies%20for%20Jesus%20and%20Christiaity.htm

      This page contains numerous internet lies, the primary one being the fake quotes about Lincoln not being Christian and denying the bible. The only sources for that quote are pages like this one. There are no credible sources for most of the crap on this page except other angry anti-Christian web pages. It's like a circle of perpetual, meaningless crap that endures through the sheer fury of those slinging it.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    21. Re:Soon to be -1... by fatphil · · Score: 2

      democratically-elected oligarchy?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    22. Re:Soon to be -1... by Quila · · Score: 1

      If you're not a Muslim you automatically lose many of the freedoms in the Constitution. Pick one.

    23. Re:Soon to be -1... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The official reason is just a slightly papered-over description of Jefferson's real crime, namely being clear and convincing evidence that the founders of the United States weren't all devout Christians who wanted to create a nation that was explicitly Christian (never mind all the evidence to the contrary, like, say, the First Amendment).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    24. Re:Soon to be -1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I do not consider atheists to be patriots or citizens. This is one nation under God." - George Bush Sr.

      Just saying. Bush ignored that USA had been "under God" only since that was added to the Pledge during the Red Scare in the 1950s.

    25. Re:Soon to be -1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
      - That Jesus dude.

      So Americans should look at America first, then criticize others in that context.

  3. Faith is a poison, when you use it as one by ackthpt · · Score: 3

    Rather a shame the way people can't respect one faith from another.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Faith is a poison, when you use it as one by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Rather a shame the way people can't respect one another.

      FTFY.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Faith is a poison, when you use it as one by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Superstition is not supported by evidence and does not merit respect.

      The only reason respect for religion is taught is due to religious influence.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Faith is a poison, when you use it as one by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Faith is a poison, period.

      he Middle East is so violent because the locals for some (literally) insane reason think society doesn't need to evolve beyond ancient tribal nonsense.

      Faith is not supported by evidence and poses as truth. That makes "faith" nothing more than a lie.

      Superstition is the worship of lies to the end of exalting believers over those not exactly like them. It is unworthy of respect because it is dishonest.

      Prove /deity exists and I'll recant and kiss his/her/its Noodly Appendage. Any answer which is not proof is no answer at all.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  4. Meow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've always thought the Ahmadis (there's actually two Ahmadi sects) are appealing to Western converts. They talk a lot about pluralism, etc, and seem to mean it. Alas, they aren't quite as progressive as I'd like on LGBT rights. A lot of their commitment to pluralism probably comes from being persecuted in traditionally Muslim countries.

    1. Re:Meow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO. Do you have to be gay to care about equality? Even if you do not it is still better to fight for their rights than wait until the religious right comes knocking on your door... Thousands of Christian people care enough about "who gets to have sex with who" and when to try and ban, contraception, extra marital sex for straight people, and sex of any sort for homosexuals the latter sometimes even on pain of death, and this in America. Or did you not know of the agenda of groups like the "American family association"? They do not just want to ban gay marriage but re-criminalise being gay, and there are other more extreme fringe groups out there as well.
      http://joemygod.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/american-family-association-calls-for.html
      http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-fornication-and-adultery-ought-be-against-law

      Worse not satisfied with just working in America they have been caught making donations to political parties(the conservatives) in the UK and elsewhere to further their aims....

    2. Re:Meow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahmadiyas are sort of a gateway drug on Islam. They convert Western agnostics, who are then visited by mainstream Sunnis who point out to them that what they are practicing is all wrong, and then they convert to Sunni Islam. Of course, Ahmadiya is regarded as heretical since they recognize their founder as a successor prophet to Mohammed (in Islam, Mohammed is supposed to be the LAST prophet, so if any Muslim claims to follow a prophet after him, they are considered heretical). Similarly, Bahai is considered heretical since it uses the book of Bahatullah, and is a fusion of Biblical and Quranic stuff. There is debate on whether Bahai is an Islamic sect or not - on one hand, they don't deny Mohammed a prophet status, which seems to make them Islamic, but on the other, they put books alongside the Quran as their most sacred.

  5. Khaaan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    By contrast, fellow Pakistani physicist A.Q. Khan, who played a key role in developing the country's nuclear bomb and later confessed to spreading nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, is considered a national hero

    Khaaan!!!

  6. Country living in the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Spotted.

  7. Backwards country by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What kind of backwards country would modify their curriculum to fit religious ideals?

    http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/12/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Backwards country by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      In other news, Texas is apparently a country now.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Backwards country by digitig · · Score: 1

      Shhh.... don't tell them that they're not. Most of them haven't noticed yet.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:Backwards country by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      Texas is 48th in education out of the 50 states that comprise the United States of America. They hardly represent the entire country. But hey, at least you got your +5, America Bashing mod

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    4. Re:Backwards country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of conservative nutcases out there that want Texas to secede, actually.

    5. Re:Backwards country by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html

      I was being sarcastic, sure. But my point was that we need to use examples like the story to make sure our own house is clean.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    6. Re:Backwards country by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Is there any way you could email me 50 cds with this story on it? My Grandma would really appreciate it.

    7. Re:Backwards country by Oh+Gawwd+Peak+Oil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But hey, at least you got your +5, America Bashing mod

      It's called not being hypocritical.

      It would be hypocritical to sit around laughing arrogantly at Pakistan, while ignoring the fact that right here at home we can do similar things as well.

      It may not be politically correct point out uncomfortable things about our own country, and you may get all offended and call it "America Bashing," but it is reality.

    8. Re:Backwards country by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      I have plenty of critical things to say about this country. I couldn't tell that the OP was being sarcastic, and a lot of people here do seem to like comments based solely on the fact that they mention something negative about the US.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    9. Re:Backwards country by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I hope so. I'm tired of being in the same country as Rick Perry.

    10. Re:Backwards country by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      I see your point. It is probably very easy to find examples like this from all across the bible belt. Your articles do in fact make great points of how religion can ruin education anywhere.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    11. Re:Backwards country by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with pointing out the facts. I was simply pointing out that Texas is hardly representative of the entire country. That said, these things always start out in a vocal minority and start to snowball. The OP makes a good point about using articles like this to point out our own follies.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    12. Re:Backwards country by poity · · Score: 1

      Read your post again. It's an example of what I dislike about a lot of online discussions, there's this pressure to take up a judgmental position -- if you're not anti-this then you're pro-that. In every political thread on /. it's like this. There's the sentiment that when another country's problems are in the spotlight, anyone who doesn't make some self-flagellating post about his own country is suspected of hypocrisy. It's gotten nearly to the point where it's impossible to have a frank discussion about the past causes and future effects of events -- everyone is busy whipping themselves for the ills of their country while those who want to talk about the issue at hand get accused of not having perspective, or worse.

      If there is a thread about creationists in the US, I don't want the discussion dragged off-topic by some Briton venting about Muslim sharia in England. I want to talk about creationists, their motivations, and what some Americans have done in the past about them, and how local communities have dealt with them. Similarly, if there is a thread about Pakistan's religion-based censorship, I don't want the discussion dragged off-topic by some American venting about Catholics in the southwest. I want to talk about Pakistan's censorship, its origins, the government's various motives, how Pakistanis have dealt with this in the past, and how they deal with this in the future.

      What many here regard as signal, is actually noise.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    13. Re:Backwards country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure 48, 49, and 50 are Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana in some order. Texas is in a somewhat upper tier.

    14. Re:Backwards country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

      "The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states."

    15. Re:Backwards country by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It may not be politically correct point out uncomfortable things about our own country, and you may get all offended and call it "America Bashing," but it is reality.

      You're joking! America bashing is at the heart of much political correctness, especially among "progressives" . . . "Oh Gawwd Peak Oil". (nudge, nudge)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    16. Re:Backwards country by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      What kind of backwards country would modify their curriculum to fit religious ideals?

      Good question.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:Backwards country by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Unlike many modern forums /. has threaded discussions. You can even collapse the threads you don't want to read.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    18. Re:Backwards country by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      I want to talk about Pakistan's censorship, its origins, the government's various motives, how Pakistanis have dealt with this in the past, and how they deal with this in the future.

      I notice that you didn't though, so the only "signal" you contributed was meta-moaning about Slashdot. Easy to see what really interests you.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    19. Re:Backwards country by hazah · · Score: 1

      Something wrong with your burner?

    20. Re:Backwards country by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Um, I don't know where you come from, but here's it's completely and utterly politically correct to point out uncomfortable things about my own country, the US.

    21. Re:Backwards country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Lone Star State, like the other States, needed to be a self-governing body before joining the federation of states. With its own constitution and all. So... yeah.

    22. Re:Backwards country by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      While you make a good point, it's equally important to have a grounded and objective base from which to make such arguments. Too often people get caught up in "Merica, FUCK YA!" mentality without considering what we've done, and why. Too often I have seen stories like this where people go off about how horrible a foreign country is for doing exactly what we have done, or are doing.

      Perspective is important. If you want to move forward, you need to know your starting point first.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    23. Re:Backwards country by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Um, I guess they don't have Fox News or Republicans in your area?

  8. A national hero here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Dr. Abdus Salam would be a national hero here in the U.S alongside others such as Katy Perry and Tom Cruise. Quick! Name five current physicists without opening another browser tab!

    1. Re:A national hero here by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

      Dr. Sheldon Cooper jumped to the top of my head.

    2. Re:A national hero here by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      And after you posted that, Rupert Sheldrake jumped to the top of mine!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

    3. Re:A national hero here by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Why current? He's been dead for almost 20 years after all.

      Anyway: Feynman, Dyson, Penrose, Hawking, Preskill.

      Or do they all need to be American, in which case remove those English pretenders and add Thorne and Guth

      If dead doesn't count, then I don't care Feynman stays because he can't not be on any such list.

      If dead does count then make some room for Fermi, Oppenheimer, and Einstein.

       

    4. Re:A national hero here by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      How "current" are we talking about?

      Steven Hawking (hasn't lifted a finger in physics for a few years... metaphorically), Carl Sagan (I was alive when he died), Niel deGrass Tyson (more of a pr guy), Abdus Salam, A.Q. Khan...

      The last 2 happened to be mentioned on this page.

    5. Re:A national hero here by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      If dead does count then make some room for Fermi, Oppenheimer, and Einstein.

      That's where I would have gone (subbing Hawking for Fermi), with the addition of Neil DeGrasse Tyson - the rock star of astrophysics.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  9. I am laughing by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A group of idiots deprives themselves of an opportunity to feel some extra national pride in what can only be described as "shitting into one's own shoes", if I were to literally translate a proverb from my native tongue. Serves them right. I wouldn't want to be in their textbooks either, I'd feel dirty.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:I am laughing by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      Instead, the poor guy realized that he won't ever gain the notoriety of that other, more religious, scientist, and full of anger shouted:

      KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  10. More proof as if we needed any by cvtan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Religious" governments are ALWAYS a bad idea.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:More proof as if we needed any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Religious" governments are ALWAYS a bad idea.

      Especially those that finance terrorism and have a nuclear arsenal.
      So why the hell are we still allies with these fuckers ?

    2. Re:More proof as if we needed any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not as simple as a religious government, it's a religious /state/. Pakistan was specifically created to be a Muslim nation. Fought to become one in living memory.

    3. Re:More proof as if we needed any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you answered the question yourself: it's the nukes,
      better they're "in our tent pissing out" is the idea.

    4. Re:More proof as if we needed any by bmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I couldn't agree more.

      Yet there is one faction of our government here in the US that has played the religion card since the "Southern Strategy". Barry Goldwater decried that they would never be rid of them.

      And so far he's been more than right - it's only gotten worse.

      The percentage of people in the US who are creationists is always polled in the high 40s. We're not that far away from Pakistan. While it may seem like a good political idea to pander to religious nutters, all we have to do to look at what would happen without the "wall of separation between Church & State", as Jefferson put it in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, is to look to the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, et al. And if you listen to many Republicans, especially the ones who are dominionists and members of The Family, they're not that far off from the Taliban. Don't forget, there were *four* Republican candidates running for President that "God" told them to run. Fortunately all 4 dropped out. God's got a sense of humour, apparently.

      But the fact remains, we had 4 wild-eyed religious whackos running for President and they were all treated seriously. That was unprecedented. And the broader Republican caucus is full of moronic bible thumpers.

      Barry Goldwater spins in his grave at high RPM. I am working on wrapping his dust and the dust of Roger Williams and William Penn in coils of wire to generate electricity and solve the energy crisis. I just need grant or VC money.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:More proof as if we needed any by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are they? Looking at history, all the most successful government before the 20th century had implied or official state religions. And even in the mundane, there's plenty of examples such as Pre-Communist Russia, which was officially Orthodox and where the church had a great deal of power, wasn't the most successful government. But at least it didn't murder tens of millions of its own citizens.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    6. Re:More proof as if we needed any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Religious" governments are ALWAYS a bad idea.

      Especially those that finance terrorism and have a nuclear arsenal.

      Like the USA?

      So why the hell are we still allies with these fuckers ?

      Beats me. All they seem to do is try to extradite our citizens and sell their crappy sitcoms...
      Disclaimer: above post is not intended to be taken seriously (apart from the crappy sitcom part).

    7. Re:More proof as if we needed any by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      "Religious" governments are ALWAYS a bad idea.

      Especially those that finance terrorism and have a nuclear arsenal. So why the hell are we still allies with these fuckers ?

      We have met the enemy, and he is us.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:More proof as if we needed any by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean like Great Britain's theocracy?

      It hasn't been a practical theocracy for a while, but the Queen is the head of the state church and the Church of England has representation in the House of Lords.

      [there that will stir things up a bit]

    9. Re:More proof as if we needed any by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      More proof as if we needed any . . . "Religious" governments are ALWAYS a bad idea.

      Of course the anti-religious governments tend to be as bad or worse.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    10. Re:More proof as if we needed any by couchslug · · Score: 1

      ""Religious" governments are ALWAYS a bad idea."

      RELIGION is always a bad idea. It's unsupported by evidence, yet posed as Truth. That makes it a LIE.

      If the Superstitionists who disagree can prove their Sky Fairie exists, I'll recant and grovel before it. If not, fuck off. Lies merit nor respect, nor do liars however seductive the lie.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:More proof as if we needed any by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "But at least it didn't murder tens of millions of its own citizens."

      It had no incentive to kill to take power since it HAD power. It wasn't very good at killing to RETAIN power since it had just bled out its own armies fighting the Imperial German Army to the tune of millions of military and civilian casualties. It still inflicted and sustained heavy losses.

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

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    12. Re:More proof as if we needed any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ""Religious" governments are ALWAYS a bad idea."

      RELIGION is always a bad idea. It's unsupported by evidence, yet posed as Truth. That makes it a LIE.

      If the Superstitionists who disagree can prove their Sky Fairie exists, I'll recant and grovel before it. If not, fuck off. Lies merit nor respect, nor do liars however seductive the lie.

      Religion is not a bad idea in and of itself.
      Using Religion to implement policy yes, that's a very very bad idea.

    13. Re:More proof as if we needed any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of how many countries with official or implied state religion in the world?

      p.s.
      Cult of personality and nationalism are pretty much the same thing as religion.

    14. Re:More proof as if we needed any by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between a nation-state of Muslims and an Islamic state, though. Initially, Pakistan was the former but not the latter. It only became an Islamic state when Hudood ordinance was enacted, which was 30 years after the state was founded.

    15. Re:More proof as if we needed any by couchslug · · Score: 1
      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  11. Not grand unification by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was electroweak unification. Important enough.

    (So far, all attempts at grand unification have failed, including Einstein's.)

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Not grand unification by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Einstein the one who proposed the concept of a grand unified theory? The first person to try should hardly be expected to succeed at a monumental task. Shoulders of giants, and all that.

    2. Re:Not grand unification by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Einstein is easily history's most brilliant physicist. The fact that he failed, while succeeding in putting in place much of the groundwork for modern quantum mechanics, is indicative of the difficulty of the problem.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:Not grand unification by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I'd normally say Newton was more brilliant, but you really can't tell. Newton had far more insights and discoveries, and worse apparatus to experiment with, but there was also more to discover.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    4. Re:Not grand unification by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Einstein used only one apparatus for experiments: his mind.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:Not grand unification by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Directly, yes, but indirectly no. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect was based off of questions generated by others using rather sophisticated equipment, for example. Many of Newton's greatest discoveries were made when he was secluded on a farm to escape the plague, Einsteins while he was working at a patent office. Both did later work with more direct experimental apparatus.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  12. Ah don't worry...ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you saying ALL Muslims follow the Taliban? Would any of you have a problem with saying ALL Atheists are baby killers?

    1. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you saying ALL Muslims follow the Taliban? Would any of you have a problem with saying ALL Atheists are baby killers?

      You are setting up a nice straw man there. Not all Muslims follow the Taliban, but all Muslims follow a cdoctrine that says that non-Muslims must be killed or accept inferior status. Read the Qur'an.

    2. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by vlm · · Score: 1

      Would any of you have a problem with saying ALL Atheists are baby killers?

      I can only speak for myself, but ... Veal... delicious Veal Parmesagn... Oh you probably meant human babies. No, no they don't make good Parmesagn at all.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by nschubach · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Bible has it's fair share of questionable text. So...to be fair, it all depends on who reads and teaches the document. If you read any book as the truth and fact, you are in for a very dark world. One thing I've learned about religion in general is that you have to take the words with a grain of skepticism to even start to be a rational person. (I've chosen to flow on the side of non-belief myself, but whatever.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by digitig · · Score: 0

      You are setting up a nice straw man there. Not all Muslims follow the Taliban, but all Muslims follow a cdoctrine that says that non-Muslims must be killed or accept inferior status. Read the Qur'an.

      Most atheists I know subscribe to the doctrine that non-atheists are inferior (and I have heard some call for all religious people to be killed). There's a lot of it about, isn't there?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between tongue in cheek statements and people that burn down embassies because of cartoons.

    6. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most atheists I know subscribe to the doctrine that non-atheists are inferior (and I have heard some call for all religious people to be killed). There's a lot of it about, isn't there?

      If I may summarize your post

      "Anecdotally, I know a lot of people in group A that believe X, and A's radical fringe believes Y."

      And the argument of the person to whom you are responding:

      "All members of group B definitionally believe text T (as that is the criteria for belonging to group B). Text T states X and Y"

      I don't know enough of the Qur'an to judge the validity of GP's claim in either direction. However, I know enough basic rhetoric to understand that you are drawing a very inapplicable analogy.

    7. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I recall correctly, Deuteronomy has a lot of text calling for the stoning, beheading, and otherwise killing of anyone who preaches a religion that differs from the bible. Thankfully, stuff like that is usually excused as being metaphorical/outdated by a good majority of Christians. When will the Muslim world follow suit?

    8. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      To add to that, I'll point out that while it is true that not all Muslims follow the Taliban, it is also true that all of the Taliban are Muslims. It is not true that all atheists are baby-killers, and it's also not true that all baby-killers are atheists. The Taliban is a subset of Muslims, but atheists and baby-killers are not subsets or supersets of each other.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Would any of you have a problem with saying ALL Atheists are baby killers?

      I can only speak for myself, but ... Veal... delicious Veal Parmesagn... Oh you probably meant human babies. No, no they don't make good Parmesagn at all.

      Psst... I had an egg for breakfast...

      Don't tell the Pontiff!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Imagine: trying to bring in Boolean logic and set math into an argument like that one. What WERE you thinking?

      This is about prejudice! Falsehoods! Blasphemy!

      You can't fight that shit with math.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    11. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by digitig · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between tongue in cheek statements and people that burn down embassies because of cartoons.

      Tell that to the Albanians.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    12. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      A small correction. This is supposed to be from Hadith, and not the Quran. Though every sect follows both Quran and Hadith (even though Hadith does not contain words of the prophet). So it is just a technicality.

    13. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

      Large chunks of the Muslim world *has* followed suit. Unfortunately, other chunks of the Muslim world haven't.

    14. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most atheists I know subscribe to the doctrine that non-atheists are inferior"

      Both of them?

    15. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Remember that next time you eat your soybean sprouts. If you can't tell a cow apart from a human you are an idiot.

    16. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      You are obviously making a gross generalization and know nothing about it really. That's like saying all Christians agree on what the Bible means which is obviously not true.

      Try actually reading the Bible. It's not hard to find passages where the Christian God is calling for the extermination of people. Try Deuteronomy 20:16. Then shut your xenophobic mouth.

    17. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      It's hard enough to imagine bringing any logic to the situation. You'd have to start with this one:

      10 - The Bible is the word of God
      20 - How do you know the Bible is the word of God
      30 - I have faith. Goto 10

    18. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure nonsense. You're cherrypicking from history and the positions of extremists. Most Muslims do not hold these positions and consider themselves devout followers of the creed. Who are you to say they are wrong?

    19. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Error in Line 10: undeclared variable.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    20. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      OH right! Which variable do we define first? God or His Word?

    21. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Good example! Yeah, we Christians HATE Canaanites! Hittites SUCK! This is totally exactly the same thing!

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    22. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying ALL Muslims follow the Taliban? Would any of you have a problem with saying ALL Atheists are baby killers?

      You are setting up a nice straw man there. Not all Muslims follow the Taliban, but all Muslims follow a cdoctrine that says that non-Muslims must be killed or accept inferior status. Read the Qur'an.

      Do you seriously think that all people who claim to follow a religion have any idea what the religion requires adherents to believe?

      Religions are not practiced by people who can think. Logical deduction about how they "should" behave if their followers could think clearly is not a good way to figure out what they will do. A few examples:

      What percent of "religious" people that you know have read the book they claim is god's word?

      I have yet to meet a Christian outside the clergy who knows that gay sex is forbidden in the same list as eating pork (in the laws of Leviticus). If Jews, Christians, and Muslims (who all consider the old testament to be the word of god) were serious about following the rules, these two acts would be equally bad. Of course they could argue that the list does or does not apply, but picking and choosing from the list is obviously (and literally) not kosher.

      How many people who believe the new testament is the word of god takes the message of the sermon on the mount and applies it to their life?

    23. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      Totally! Thank God we put them to the sword. Had we not done such a good job, they might still plague us today -- like those pesky frogs and locusts and stuff.

    24. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Undefined loop in 30.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    25. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by styrotech · · Score: 1

      If you can't tell a cow apart from a human you are an idiot.

      I'm not sure I would be able to tell the difference. I've never knowingly dined on human flesh before.

    26. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Large chunks? I'm assuming you mean large in terms of population? Which large chunks are you talking about? Perhaps you should read about Islam in the world's biggest Muslim countries like Indonesia and Pakistan, and large Muslim minorities like India? Have you read about the growing Islamist power in the Middle East due to the Arab Spring?

    27. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      You're right that OP was generalizing and exaggerating, but you're being misleading by drawing a false equivalence between Islam and Christianity.

      You can't deny that most Christians value Jesus and most Muslim value Mohammed. Then you just have to look at the differences between Jesus and Mohammed to get an idea of where that value will lead. Jesus was the son of God, pure good, so good that nobody can possibly be as good as him. He forgave people of their sins, cured sick people, etc.

      Mohammed wasn't like that. He's supposed to be human. Calling him the son of God, or a representation of God, is actually against Islam. Worship of Mohammed is prohibited (thought Muslims revere him). He's a soldier of Allah, a general. He committed atrocities. He tells his soldiers it's okay to rape prisoners. He's a *practical* leader.

      Please, name a few atrocities that Jesus personally committed or ordered and that are widely celebrated by Christians. Jesus was an impractical person. Nobody can be like him. Your typical Christian doesn't even aspire to be like Jesus. How many Christians support the death penalty for instance? Plenty. If you ask a Christian who supports the death penalty whether Jesus would support the death penalty, they'd say "No probably not but he's the son of God" or something like that.

      Compare that to Muslim contemporary politics. Calling someone an infidel, a bad Muslim, a traitor to Islam, etc is a huge deal. People get killed for doing un-Islamic things. If they are called on doing something un-Islamic, they don't say "So what? This is the law, not religion" or something like that. They rephrase their argument in Islamic terms. If they are supporting girls' education, and their opponent says girls' education is un-Islamic, their argument becomes that Mohammed believed in education for girls. They would never say something like "Yeah Mohammed would do it differently but guess what I'm not Mohammed."

      I don't know.. it's like people like you live in a fantasy world where the reality of the Muslim world escapes them. You really should read about it before making these silly arguments about finding a "bad" verse in the Bible and showing that Christianity and Islam are equal. Also, believing that most Muslims are secretly super liberal and really laid back about religion is just dumb.

    28. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Pure nonsense. You're cherrypicking from history and the positions of extremists. Most Muslims do not hold these positions and consider themselves devout followers of the creed. Who are you to say they are wrong?

      We don't need to say they're wrong. The Muslim clerics and scholars do that. How many Muslim clerics do you hear saying that it is wrong to prevent non-Muslims from building places of worship, or to engage in violent jihad, etc?

    29. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing I've learned about religion in general is that you have to take the words with a grain of skepticism to even start to be a rational person.

      But that's the real problem. Religion teaches people not to be critical and to accept everything on faith. I'm sure there are some sound thinking religious out there, but nearly every follower of the major religions is taught to just believe what they are told from early childhood.

    30. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's not like the Christianists in the USA, Uganda etc. are any better. Especially for gays, atheists, or other "deviants".

    31. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

      Which large chunks am I talking about? The ones that live in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, etc. The ones that live on my block. The ones that live down the street from you.

    32. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      Your typical Christian doesn't even aspire to be like Jesus.

      That says it all to me really. To paraphrase, "your typical Christian doesn't even pay any attention to the New Testament."

      My finding of "bad" verse in the Bible is hardly any more silly than assuming that Christians are better people than Muslims. I'd be willing to bet that wars initiated by predominantly Christian nations have killed far, far more people than wars initiated by Islamic nations. Let's consider a few:
      * The Crusades
      * The Napoleonic Wars
      * The United States Civil War
      * World War I
      * World War II

    33. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Tears of Jihad

      This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

      By my recollection / estimate, 270 million is far, far more than were killed in all of the above wars.

      Other than the Crusades, which were a defensive reaction against Islamic invasion and conquest, none of those wars was motivated by religion. On the other hand, Jihad is still with us.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    34. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      That is your source? Did you even read it? Interestingly, it doesn't even bother to try and attribute the deaths to actual Jihad and instead gets most of its 270 million from the African Slave Trade. As I recall, the Dutch (an ostensibly Christian nation at the time) were the real slave traffickers. More importantly, the entire population of Africa in 1950 (according to UN estimates) was only 250 million. I seriously doubt there were even 100 million people in all of Africa 100 years earlier. And, if we are including death by slave trade on the Jihad side, we have to assume some death by "Christian" nations as well. I glanced at the rest. I think it's pretty clear that there is an anti-islamic agenda going on at that particular site. Facts, on the other hand, seem conspicuously absent.

    35. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      So by "large chunks of the Muslim world" you mean "small populations of Muslims in countries where Islam is not dominant."

      I agree with you in that context but calling it large is not correct.

    36. Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Well, as I'm sure you know, the Crusades were not initiated by Christian nations.

      Anyway, you might be right on the total death tally if only because there are more Christians than Muslims and the religion is older. And Christian societies are far more technologically advanced, which unfortunately enables large scale warfare and destruction -- seriously, in the early 20th century what Muslim country could even contemplate a world-wide war?

      I don't see the point though since we're not talking about death tolls. I was talking about extremism and how much weight religion carries in different societies today. You didn't even try to dispute my point, just bring up stuff about war.

  13. Ridiculous comparison by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People can handle accidental, isolated deaths. Yes, someone dies, but there is no malicious force that caused it.

    People can handle mass-death less easily, even when it's accidental (or not intentional). But things like the sinking of the Titantic, air disasters, bus accidents, and similar still disproportionately capture attention.

    People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system. Yes, foreign policy, resources, economics, geopolitics, and myriad other nuances are involved here, but it really is that simple at its core.

    The reason there ever was a "war on terror" isn't to "funnel money to corporate buddies" — it's because, to be blunt, we don't put up with that shit, even if our response is imperfect — not to mention that Europe and the West has enjoyed US defense-by-proxy for over a half-century. The fact that war is an economic driver is incidental (even if it can be argued to be important in its own way). But make no mistake: when US policy makers of any political stripe make the decision to go to war, the thinking isn't, "Hey, this can line the pockets of my corporate buddies!! Lulz!"

    But I know that you and many other readers here are cynical (and ignorant) enough to actually twist a story about Pakistan and Islam into, yet again in true topsy-turvy bizarro-world style, how the US is evil. (Same thing happened with the recent Syria Wikileaks story.) It might be amusing if it weren't so predictable, pathetic, and shameful.

    1. Re:Ridiculous comparison by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system.

      Well... Some (many?, most?) cannot accept that. For others, it seems to be their way of life - that's very sad.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system. Yes, foreign policy, resources, economics, geopolitics, and myriad other nuances are involved here, but it really is that simple at its core.

      and thats exactly why everybody hates stupid americans.

    3. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Hatta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      People can handle accidental, isolated deaths. Yes, someone dies, but there is no malicious force that caused it. ...

      People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system.

      I find sporadic intentional, malicious deaths to be far more acceptable than widespread preventable accidental deaths. Any decent human being would feel the same. The important thing is to minimize the loss of human life. Whether there's intentionality behind the deaths is irrelevant.

      The problem is, most people aren't decent human beings and care more about being slighted by foreigners than about actually saving lives.

      The reason there ever was a "war on terror" isn't to "funnel money to corporate buddies" â" it's because, to be blunt, we don't put up with that shit

      What's sad is that you probably actually believe that. If that were actually true, we'd have actual reasons for going to war, instead of flimsy pretexts.

      e.g. Afghanistan, we're there to get Bin Laden, but once we get there we stop looking for him and waste years spending money for nothing. Who does that benefit besides military contractors?

      e.g. Iraq. What reason is there to invent a non-existant link between Saddam Hussein and OBL, and hype up non-existent WMDs based on evidence that was known to be false?

      Why did we go intervene in Lybia and haven't done much yet in Syria? One's an oil producing nation, the other isn't.

      You've made a bold assertion in that "we don't put up with that shit". What sort of mechanisms are in place to prevent that shit from happening? If a well connected vice president actually decided to go to war in order to benefit his cronies, how does the system prevent that? What reason is there to believe that ANY US politician makes ANY decision without considering how it would profit their friends and campaign contributors?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, oh enlightened one! Without your unproved and out of the ass wisdom, I would be lost.

    5. Re:Ridiculous comparison by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

      " But make no mistake: when US policy makers of any political stripe make the decision to go to war, the thinking isn't, "Hey, this can line the pockets of my corporate buddies!! Lulz!"

      Well actually there was LBJ, he was a pretty successful war profiteer on Bell helicopter, General Dynamics fighters and his buddy ran Brown and Root. Brown and Root did very profitable general contracting for the military in Vietnam.

      Brown and Root became Kellog Brown and Root and ended up owned by Halliburton which Dick Cheney used to war profiteer in Iraq 30 years later. The second Iraq war turned in to one massive exercise in war profiteering for people well connected with the Republican party. The U.S. would fly in plane loads of 100 dollar bills and they would be made to disappear. How else do you explain the Bush administrations overwhelming urge to invade Iraq. There was no actual rational reason for it that wasn't a lie.

      War profiteering is as old as war, Dave. Are you actually that naive or do you not even believe the stuff you're writing anymore.

      Profiteering may not be the prime reason for a war but it sure is a huge fringe benefit for the well connected.

      --
      @de_machina
    6. Re:Ridiculous comparison by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system. Yes, foreign policy, resources, economics, geopolitics, and myriad other nuances are involved here, but it really is that simple at its core.

      While there is some irrational hatred at play, the fact remains that the US and its allies have been overthrowing governments, propping up dictators, and generally fucking with many countries in the Middle East for over 50 years now. I'd say it adds up to a bit more than nuance.

      The reason there ever was a "war on terror" isn't to "funnel money to corporate buddies" — it's because, to be blunt, we don't put up with that shit, even if our response is imperfect — not to mention that Europe and the West has enjoyed US defense-by-proxy for over a half-century. The fact that war is an economic driver is incidental (even if it can be argued to be important in its own way). But make no mistake: when US policy makers of any political stripe make the decision to go to war, the thinking isn't, "Hey, this can line the pockets of my corporate buddies!! Lulz!"

      The reasons for the War on Terror are myriad. Many players are interested in it for their own reasons. For the defense contractors and the banks, the purpose of the War on Terror is very much to make money. That $500 billion the Pentagon spends every year has to go into someones' pocket. And the debt to finance the war has to come from somewhere. Not much gets done in America that doesn't have a profit motive.

      But I know that you and many other readers here are cynical (and ignorant) enough to actually twist a story about Pakistan and Islam into, yet again in true topsy-turvy bizarro-world style, how the US is evil. (Same thing happened with the recent Syria Wikileaks story.) It might be amusing if it weren't so predictable, pathetic, and shameful.

      On the world stage it's never about good and evil. It's about power and control; who has it and who wants it. It's as simple as that.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    7. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's mostly stupid Americans who hate Americans.

    8. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations set the international agenda, yes. That's what globalization has always been about. Religious fundamentalists think locally, and they're more concerned with trying to set the tone of educational curricula. The corporatocracy has always been ensured an excess of qualified underlings able to run their operations and ambitious enough not to care about their fellows. The average person has to be in possession of a reasonable certainty that their material needs will be met before they can look outside their own backyard. That's all this is about.

      If Pakistanis, who have only been independent as a country for 65 years and all the while convinced they were under threat of violence from their neighbors in China & India, are still concerned with their Islamic identity, to the point where they denigrate the achievements of their own countrymen in favor of an emotional argument that Islamism is more important than their ability to 'compete' in a world where they're already outnumbered and outmatched, so be it. It's their country. All this represents, to me, is the backwardness of religious institutions, their desire for control, and the ease with which they are appeased as a result.

      People view and react to the world in emotional terms first. If I lived in Pakistan or Afghanistan, odds are I'd have a very different view of the world, my place in it and my interpretation of the meaning of life or how to ensure that I measured up to the task of finding a place the morass of what little modernity to which I was exposed.

      In the west we are encouraged to view this non-event from within the confines and comforts of our own, very different, set of cultural myths that shape of identities, as promoted by an incredibly biased and highly artificial representation or history and our superior place in it.

      Why should I begrudge anyone the opportunity to create their own version of Plato's cave?

    9. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why did we go intervene in Lybia and haven't done much yet in Syria? One's an oil producing nation, the other isn't.

      Your answers are good-natured but dangerously simplistic. Here's something that's a little less simplistic, but hopefully enough to convince you to look deeper.

      We intervened in Libya because there were clear objectives and a clear path to victory. One well-defined rebellion opposition with a game plan and a string of cities between themselves and Tripoli.

      We're still figuring Syria out. There's more than one opposition group... and they have next to nothing in common with each other, except for wanting al-Assad out! They're not working with or co-ordinated with each other. (One wants Western assistance... the other considers us infidels... this complicates how we can "intervene". That's just one factor.)

      Syria's government has been in power for a long time, in part because it's kept its opposition fragmented.

    10. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find sporadic intentional, malicious deaths to be far more acceptable than widespread preventable accidental deaths. Any decent human being would feel the same. The important thing is to minimize the loss of human life. Whether there's intentionality behind the deaths is irrelevant.

      Hatta you're not in any position to say how a decent human being would feel because you are not a decent human being.
      Humanity would be better off without you.

      Turing word: backside
      In a sentence: Hatta is a pustule on the backside of humanity.

    11. Re:Ridiculous comparison by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Why did we go intervene in Lybia and haven't done much yet in Syria? One's an oil producing nation, the other isn't.

      Rather, because Russia and China vetoed the security council resolution. Russia only today declared it would temporarily stop selling arms to Syria. Western powers unanimously supported the resolution.

    12. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why did we go intervene in Lybia and haven't done much yet in Syria? One's an oil producing nation, the other isn't."

      Technically Syria is an oil-producing and exporting nation, but it is a minor one compared to, say Libya or Iraq. It's also fair to say that Libya was a far simpler country to attack militarily because: A) it's population is relatively small, and B) most of it is in a strip along the coast. Syria would be vastly more complicated. A lot more like Iraq.

    13. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find sporadic intentional, malicious deaths to be far more acceptable than widespread preventable accidental deaths. Any decent human being would feel the same. The important thing is to minimize the loss of human life. Whether there's intentionality behind the deaths is irrelevant.

      There is a difference between the next 100 people to die in preventable accidents and a real threat to kill the next person to draw Hatta having sex with a goat. The former is larger accepted even to the point of wasting resources on mandatory insurance premiums (insurance is a losing bet, state-mandated insurance forces us all to play at the craps table). OTOH, if everyone drawing you and the goat sex thing is brutally murdered, the world will be increasingly deprived of this new and important art form.

      Targeted killing affects our freedom in a way that accidental deaths do not. "That's not what I meant by 'sporadic'!". Well, either you meant few in number as compared to preventable deaths or you meant purely random. Would purely random torture killings be worse than ten times as many accidental deaths? Quite possibly. Reasonable people accept death but they would not accept being tortured to death.

      A lot of this impacts our freedom, the facets of death we accept, and a general contempt for brutal thugs (this is not to say we don't have blinders regarding our foreign policy). Were your idea to have practicality, murder could be forgiven by saving a greater number of lives. So Hatta kills some rich kid (in your defense, you thought the kid was a goat), does this mean dead goat fucking can be forgiven by saving ten starving Somalians? Or with vaccinations or anti-HIV medicinals?

    14. Re:Ridiculous comparison by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Any decent human being would feel the same. The important thing is to minimize the loss of human life. Whether there's intentionality behind the deaths is irrelevant.

      That's bold. And wrong. There are plenty of decent human beings, myself included, who care about the intentionality behind deaths. Is there a single country in the world that doesn't have separate laws for accidental death, negligence leading to death, self-defense leading to death, and intentional murder, to at least some degree?

      The fact is you can't minimize loss to human life. We all die. It's just a matter of how and when. It would be interesting to see the results of a survey asking if you'd rather die at age 30 of some random natural cause or age 31 through a brutal ritualistic murder. A year of life in exchange for your manner of death. By your logic most people would choose age 31 with a brutal death. I don't think that's right, but who knows.

      e.g. Afghanistan, we're there to get Bin Laden, but once we get there we stop looking for him and waste years spending money for nothing. Who does that benefit besides military contractors?

      That's irrelevant, the problem stemmed from Afghanistan turning into a humanitarian mission. How can you hunt for bin Laden when you are so worried about building a stable government, securing cities, ending the drug trade, etc? That's the question to ask, not "who benefited monetarily."

      e.g. Iraq. What reason is there to invent a non-existant link between Saddam Hussein and OBL, and hype up non-existent WMDs based on evidence that was known to be false?

      Who knows, paranoia perhaps? I don't remember a serious invention of a link between Saddam and OBL. It was all about the nuclear weapons. And lest you forget, Saddam milked that to his advantage as much as possible. He decided now was the time to stick it to America and gamble on us being entrenched in Afghanistan. He was wrong.

    15. Re:Ridiculous comparison by slashmojo · · Score: 1

      Why did we go intervene in Lybia and haven't done much yet in Syria? One's an oil producing nation, the other isn't.

      That has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with the fact that russia and china (and iran) are standing firmly behind assad so there's very little the west can do without creating a major confrontation with those two.

      There's also the added risk of any military action against syria causing assad to drag the whole region (ie. israel) into the war which he could very easily do.. if he's backed into a corner the easiest way out is to deflect his predominantly islamic opposition onto every muslims favourite enemy.

      Lastly, along with the powerful backing he has and the risk of regional war there is the small issue of syria having a very large, very real and not at all secret stock of chemical weapons and possibly biological too although that part is somewhat more secret. They also have no shortage of missiles to go along with those weapons.

      So all in, Syria is a much different and vastly more dangerous beast that Libya.. no oil conspiracy involved this time.

    16. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how a lot of people work. Many of us are wired to respond stronger to maliciousness and attemt to punish the offender, it's in our genes.

    17. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget a pretty important thing. Let's say that a politician is considering war. He's going to ask people what they think about it. You know, just to double-check his opinion. But, where does the public come into the loop?

      No, he'll start with the 'National Security Advisors'. The people who can see the classified intel reports. Which includes other Congresscritters, and...people in the military-industrial complex. Who go out of business if there aren't wars.

      Never forget that one of the first lines of advice on "Should we go to war?" are groups who build the guns that we use in wars.

    18. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you still in Yemen? Because that's who you are right? The Norwegian everybody is searching for? Your idiocy fits the bill nicely.

      Heard your name was leaked too. Why not turn yourself in? Or will that make your friends remove "Muslim" from your grave?

    19. Re:Ridiculous comparison by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Syria IS an oil producing nation. It's one reason (apart from weapons sales, military bases, and Iran's backing) that Russia refuses to support any intervention. Stop with the nonsense about the US doing stuff for oil. Even in Iraq we didn't have any more opportunities than anybody else for oil contracts. If you repeat nonsense over and over and over it doesn't make it true. Don't blame Israel either since they recommended against intervention (they argued it would destabilize the region, and it did). Whatever the reasons we went into Iraq were, they were not those two.

    20. Re:Ridiculous comparison by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      We're still figuring Syria out. There's more than one opposition group... and they have next to nothing in common with each other, except for wanting al-Assad out! They're not working with or co-ordinated with each other. (One wants Western assistance... the other considers us infidels... this complicates how we can "intervene". That's just one factor.)

      Sounds exactly like Libya to me, given that in the latter a notable part of rebel forces was constituted by ex-jihadi from Iraq and elsewhere with ties to al Qaeda. But you helped them anyway.

    21. Re:Ridiculous comparison by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But I know that you and many other readers here are cynical (and ignorant) enough to actually twist a story about Pakistan and Islam into, yet again in true topsy-turvy bizarro-world style, how the US is evil.

      It actually kinda follows directly from the story. As the story demonstrates, the present-day society in Pakistan is extremist Islamic. On the other hand, Pakistan is a US ally, so you turn a blind eye on Islamists in their government, so long as they help you fight Islamists in the neighboring Afghanistan (and Waziristan, where they come from). Similarly, you have directly supported religious extremists in Libya toppling a secular dictator. And in Saudi Arabia, you support an absolutist monarchy with extreme form of Islam (Wahhabi) as a state religion.

      So clearly your "War on Terror" is not targeted at any Islamic extremism, but rather only at the kind which doesn't like you. So long as they blow up someone else, you seem to be quite content with that, and will even arm them if the people they blow up are your enemies (even if they are civilians).

    22. Re:Ridiculous comparison by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      There are people in government motivated to do the right thing, and some of them feel our "War on Terror" efforts equate to doing the right thing. There are other people in government motivated by greed above all else. These people will find a plausible cause (maybe something the "do the right thing" people want to do), and then corrupt it to their means. For the most part, it seems those driven by greed don't have enough power to do things on their own, but same goes for those that are just trying to do the right thing. The result is an endless series of seemingly well-intended actions that just happen to be good at lining someone's pocket.

      Sure, this is oversimplification, but I feel it's closer to the truth than "it's all greed" or "it's all good will".

    23. Re:Ridiculous comparison by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Why did we go intervene in Lybia and haven't done much yet in Syria? One's an oil producing nation, the other isn't."

      Libya was weak and isolated logistically. Syria is well-armed and has Russian support.

      Libya has a tiny population of about six million, Syria more than three times that.

      Libya didn't pose a serious spillover risk. Syria does.

      Libya doesn't have neighbors who can handle intervention. Syria has Turkey, which is very well-equipped.

      War in Syria could be costly, and as we learned in Iraq and A-stan if you stick your nose in civil wars everyone you can't buy off tries to kill you.

      Syria isn't worth fucking with. The US should slash its military budget to "permit" NATO and the UN to do its OWN global love enforcement with its OWN resources.

      Germany, the UK, and France are the leading world arms exporters after the US and Russia. If they think this shit's worth doing, let them man what they make and do it themselves..

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  14. ebooks and digital media without physical medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is what scares me about ebooks and digital media without physical medium in general. it becomes too easy for the 'powers that be' (PTB) to edit and revise important documents and information...and too easy for them to accuse original, true e-copies as being false works of fanatics and heretics.

  15. and we're giving them how much money??? by srk2040 · · Score: 0

    Pakistan is lost cause, stop this debacle.

    1. Re:and we're giving them how much money??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, Romney would make things worse. He was against going after Bin Laden in Pakistan.

    2. Re:and we're giving them how much money??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but that's only because they make really comfortable magic underwear.

  16. Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It is nothing but ignorance to conflate Radical Islam with Evangelical Christianity.

    Yeah, we get that it fits your "All Religion Is Evil / All Religion is Anti-Science" prejudiced screed, but it's just not a valid comparison. All you're doing is trying to rile people up and/or get them to march to the drumbeats of your own bigotry, like so many Evangelical Atheists enjoy doing.

    Comparing the Extremism the Fundamentalist Islamists get away with around the world to whatever drama the Fundamentalist Christians try to perpetrate is -- really -- just ridiculous. To do so means you either have an agenda, or lack education. Which is it with you?

  17. The dose makes the poison by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally I am an atheist, but it seems that low-levels of religious belief seem to do most people little harm and some good and at least in smaller communities seem to provide a certain amount of greater good & charity which might otherwise go missing.

    It would be nice if the people involved could just enjoy getting together for the sake of getting together and do charitable works because helping people is usually the right thing to do without shame-based moralizing and all the hocus pocus, but human experience seems to suggest a more Hobbesian outcome without some kind of organizational direction.

    1. Re:The dose makes the poison by Kohath · · Score: 0

      Because how could shame and morality ever help anyone? All behavior is of exactly equal value, right?

    2. Re:The dose makes the poison by gumpish · · Score: 1

      Personally I am an atheist, but it seems that low-levels of religious belief seem to do most people little harm

      It may do little harm to those low-level believers, but their existence does much to validate their more extreme bretheren.

    3. Re:The dose makes the poison by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Religion means that instead of developing, nurturing and above all understanding your own moral code, you let someone else spoon-feed you one. And make no mistake, it really is a person (or group of persons) doing the spoon-feeding. The bible is no clear cut guide in itself; there's plenty of nasty stuff in there, so you have priests and fellow christians telling you which bits to ignore and which ones to follow. And the koran is even worse. The only acceptable rendering of that book is in its original Arabic language, and for good reason: the language is incredibly ambiguous, requiring a priesthood for "proper"interpretation. Better to develop your own morality, and sure, copy the good bits from whatever religion takes your fancy. Just understand why you are copying them.

      And of course there is good in religion: a lot of religious rules are merely codifications of existing rules and mores of the societies in which these religions sprang up. There is a lot to be said for something that encourages all of us to adopt the same set of rules. But then again it is no surprise that religion crept (and continues to creep) into stuff that we consider to be personal choices. After all, where is the priesthood's role if scripture merely echoes the secular law of the land? Religion has an innate need to meddle in your personal affairs... another good reason to steer clear.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:The dose makes the poison by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree, though I have heard and, for a time, subscribed to that benign view but I have come to change my mind. Here's why... Once you hang your existential hat onto an external ideology, of whatever stripe - in this case religion, you lose that basic connection of awareness/responsibility/fate and how they interact to really map out what becomes our life. No, it wasn't that you didn't love Jesus enough as to why you lost your job, had the transmission die in your car, etc. It was a combination of the above. From there, comes the really important question: WTF do *I* do now?

    5. Re:The dose makes the poison by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Religion means that instead of developing, nurturing and above all understanding your own moral code, you let someone else spoon-feed you one.

      1st world problems.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    6. Re:The dose makes the poison by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      The idea that bad things will happen to you because you didn't love Jesus enough is an extremely immature view of religion. I would hope you'd have grown out of that by the the time you were 8 or so. An adult view of religion is not nearly as cut and dried as push-button-receive-bacon. It's much less about instant karma and much more about interest in ones place in the universe.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    7. Re:The dose makes the poison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could have communicated the need for some consideration of the way we treat each other under the light of our developing sentience. It may have been a work in progress but we could have existed in the truth that we had. Instead, we chose otherwise.

      But, hell, I am probably babeling

    8. Re:The dose makes the poison by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Personally I am an atheist, but it seems that low-levels of religious belief seem to do most people little harm and some good and at least in smaller communities seem to provide a certain amount of greater good

      So do large amounts. It's not how religious someone is, but what they do with that faith and their principles. Most churches... and temples and mosques, for that matter... do far more good than harm. Even Thomas Jefferson, famously a skeptic about religion in his younger years... came to see religion as beneficial as he got older. He just didn't fully embrace it himself.

      Keep in mind also that Pakistan literally means "Land of the Pure". So there's not going to be a lot of built-in tolerance for heretical branches of Islam. But Ahmadis will tell you they are Muslim, and that no other sect gets to decide that, God does.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    9. Re:The dose makes the poison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, idiot. Your morality is instinctual and hard-wired into your brain unless you are a psychopath. You don't need a book to tell you what is good and evil, in a personal sense.

    10. Re:The dose makes the poison by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      There is a lot to be said for something that encourages all of us to adopt the same set of rules.

      It's called "law", and it's preferably developed by a secular government.

    11. Re:The dose makes the poison by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      You don't really need anyone else to have a fulfilling dialog in which the truths of your core beliefs are elucidated, do you?

      Why do you bother even posting here?

    12. Re:The dose makes the poison by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Religious moderation simply provides cover to extremists. Nothing good comes from religion without all the baggage.

    13. Re:The dose makes the poison by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      That's so wrong as to be the King of wrongness. The assumption that morality is somehow inherent is as silly as assuming that reading is an innate trait.

  18. Both sides are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fundies on both sides are wrong.

    Both are in fact so wrong that I have a hard time telling Christian Fundies, from Islamic Fundies.

    Taliban, KKK, name doesn't matter, walks like a duck quacks like a duck.

    1. Re:Both sides are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both are in fact so wrong that I have a hard time telling Christian Fundies, from Islamic Fundies.

      Taliban, KKK, name doesn't matter, walks like a duck quacks like a duck.

      The beliefs that make KKK whacko don't come from Christianity, and they're not backed by any kind of government. They invented their own crazy. Fortunately they're dwindling in numbers.

    2. Re:Both sides are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The beliefs that make KKK whacko don't come from Christianity

      Clearly you have never read the Bible or the KKK's hate literature. There's considerable overlap - look up the Heresy of Peor, for example. God rewards Phinehas and all his seed for the extrajudicial murder of Zimri, who has committed miscegenation. Or check out the Prophet Ezra's viewpoint on race-mixing - the KKK is right in line.

      and they're not backed by any kind of government.

      At some points in US history, the KKK has run governments - such as the Indiana state government in 1925, for instance.

      They invented their own crazy

      The only "crazy" they invented on their own was the curious idea that Christianity wasn't founded by Jews.

      Fortunately they're dwindling in numbers.

      Amen to that, brother.

    3. Re:Both sides are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you haven't read the KKK's hate literature. Read Might is Right. It praises Satan. In fact, much of Laveyan Satanism is copy pasted right out of that book. Hardly a Christian influence, i'd argue. When white supremacists refer to Christianity they do so in a cultural sense.

  19. What is that shit? by khasim · · Score: 2

    Look up Alan Turing and what he was prosecuted for by the SECULAR government.

    Look up how the Catholic church has treated scientists throughout its history.

    Look up the Protestants in the USofA right now to see how they are trying to hide parts of history that they don't like.

    This is more about a party in power trying to re-write history LIKE MOST PARTIES IN POWER DO than it is about evil Muslims being all evil and Muslim.

    1. Re:What is that shit? by digitig · · Score: 0, Troll

      Look up how the Catholic church has treated scientists throughout its history.

      For most of its history it funded them. Is that what you meant?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:What is that shit? by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      I call Shenanigans. Galileo is the obvious counterexample.

    3. Re:What is that shit? by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      I call Shenanigans. Galileo is the obvious counterexample.

      Galileo was a dick, that's why he was persecuted. Read about it.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    4. Re:What is that shit? by ukemike · · Score: 1

      Look up Alan Turing and what he was prosecuted for by the SECULAR government.

      The UK is a Christian nation with an official Christian Church and the law that Turning was prosecuted under, Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, was the very embodiment of Victorian Christian morals. You cannot really separate Christianity from Turing's persecution. The illegality of homosexuality and sodomy in the west derives directly from the violent condemnation of sodomy in the Old and New Testaments.

      --
      -- QED
    5. Re:What is that shit? by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      Does that mean it's open season on dicks? If so, Donald Trump is first on my list.

    6. Re:What is that shit? by Velex · · Score: 1

      I missed the part of the bible that specified that injecting a homosexual man with estrogen, causing his breasts to begin to develop, would cure him of homosexuality. Would you be so kind as point that out?

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    7. Re:What is that shit? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Riiight. Because one person was persecuted at one point in history (basically because he called the pope an idiot for asking for evidence of a long-discredited theory that we now know to be correct -- read up on it, and look at Galileo's other work) that means that the Catholic church never promoted any science? I can recommend some primers on basic logic for you, if you like.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:What is that shit? by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

      I think the more potent response on your part would be to provide examples to back up your assertion. I'm still winning inasmuch as I have provided at least one.

    9. Re:What is that shit? by Jappus · · Score: 1

      I missed the part of the bible that specified that injecting a homosexual man with estrogen, causing his breasts to begin to develop, would cure him of homosexuality. Would you be so kind as point that out?

      There are always three things to any written pronouncement: The letter, the spirit and the application. In law terms it means that the letter of the law (the text that is read by you) is not a complete picture of the spirit of the law (what those who wrote it intended), and that how it is applied (what those who read it do with it) is not a perfect representation of either of the the two former things.

      In your example, the Old Testament merely states that homosexuality is a grave sin and should be punished in the life just as it is punished in the afterlife. The spirit of it was just good, old, plain homophobia. The application of it by those who follow that creed can range from tacit disapproval to burn-them-at-the-stake. Somewhere in the middle-ground is chemical castration as happened to Turing.

      So, even though the OT did not proscribe that punishment directly, it is responsible for, or at least an expression of, the belief that homosexuals ought to be punished. So if you think the application is morally wrong, you can't escape the argument that the letter is also or even just as morally wrong.

      Or in other terms:
      I missed the part of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution where it says people may buy assault rifles, rocket launchers and autocannons. Would you be so kind as point that out?
      I missed the part in the manual of my car where it said you should not strap rocket boosters onto it. Would you be so kind as point that out?

      Or, to put it in really simple, Hollywood-compatible terms:
      I missed the part of the Army Handbook where it says where to find the mess hall. But if it isn't explicitly described in there, how could you have ever found the mess hall?

    10. Re:What is that shit? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Does that mean it's open season on dicks? If so, Donald Trump is first on my list.

      I don't think anyone here has a problem with that.

    11. Re:What is that shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up Alan Turing and what he was prosecuted for by the SECULAR government.

      The UK is a Christian nation with an official Christian Church and the law that Turning was prosecuted under, Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, was the very embodiment of Victorian Christian morals. You cannot really separate Christianity from Turing's persecution. The illegality of homosexuality and sodomy in the west derives directly from the violent condemnation of sodomy in the Old and New Testaments.

      Which one is official? Scotland is part of the UK and the Church of England means squat up here.

  20. This is EXCELLENT news!!! by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Anything they can do to unwind the clock several hundreds of years is great for the rest of us. Hopefully they'll outlaw literacy soon and get to breeding out of all sense of control or reason.

  21. The Muzzies are coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Muzzies are coming, The Muzzies are coming
    Every one keep calm
    They're violent and they're evil
    and they mean to do us harm.

  22. Flamebait summary much? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

    Khan is a Muslim.

    Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:Flamebait summary much? by vigour · · Score: 1

      Khan is a Muslim.

      Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.

      Many mainstream Muslim do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims

    2. Re:Flamebait summary much? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Khan is a Muslim.

      Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.

      Not according to Pakistani law from 1974, which says that since Ahmadis believe that their founder was a prophet, and therefore that Mohammed was not the last prophet, then they are not Muslims and cannot refer to themselves as Muslim, cannot refer to their religious buildings as mosques, and cannot answer the Muslim call to prayer. The penalties include death. This is a national law in Pakistan, and the reason why they modified the inscription "First Muslim Nobel Laureate" on the guy's tombstone to remove the word "Muslim" (not sure how they left the inscription though, removing just that word would be incorrect).

      Anyway, welcome to Pakistan and the religion of peace.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Flamebait summary much? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Khan is a Muslim.

      Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.

      Many mainstream Muslim do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims

      So?

      Many "mainstream Christians" don't consider Mormons to be Christians, yet they are.

      Many Hasidic Jews don't consider "mainstream Jews" to be real Jews, yet they are.

      Who determines your faith - you, or other people?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Flamebait summary much? by vigour · · Score: 1

      Khan is a Muslim.

      Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.

      Many mainstream Muslim do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims

      So? Many "mainstream Christians" don't consider Mormons to be Christians, yet they are. Many Hasidic Jews don't consider "mainstream Jews" to be real Jews, yet they are. Who determines your faith - you, or other people?

      Don't be so naive. When dealing with the external world and categorisation it is not "you" who determines others' label for your religion, but those "other people" who are the majority and make the rules. Those with the biggest metaphorical and physical guns decides who is in the club and who is a heretic.

      You may call your religion the one true and holy continuation of Zoroastrianism, but until you are the majority denomination, or the most influential, the rest of the world will consider it to be a loony cult, minor sect, or alternate branch depending on size.

      Religious names and categorisation are social constructs, you may even claim to be a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, but until the rest of us agree to call you that you're still a human. The point your missing is that in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, "The Land of the Pure", Abdus Salam is not considered to be a Muslim. We both agree to call him Muslim, but that does not change his status in Pakistan. If he was Baha'i or Oriental Christian he would most likely still be written out of local history because they are powerless, minority religions and do not follow the national narrative of a primarily Sunni Islamic nation.

      Returning to your attempt at logical argument, likewise most "mainstream Jews" don't consider Christians, or Muslims to be Jewish yet they both claim to be the continuation and reformation of that religion and thus subsume Judaism into their traditions. Ahmadism, Baha'i are examples of reform and syncretic religions. Failed reformations and minor branches are not considered part of the main religion by the main religion; Roman Catholicism still claims primacy as the one true catholic faith with Apostolic Succession. Similarly the Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran churches also claim to be the true Christian faith, none of them consider Mormons to be, and in their jurisdiction they can define what is and isn't Christian by whatever criteria they choose.

    5. Re:Flamebait summary much? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Who determines your faith - you, or other people?

      The ones with the monopoly (or at least significant share of the oligopoly) on violence. It doesn't ultimately matter what you call yourself if others have the power to decide your fate based on THEIR beliefs.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    6. Re:Flamebait summary much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Khan is a Muslim.

      Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.

      Many mainstream Muslim do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims

      So?

      Many "mainstream Christians" don't consider Mormons to be Christians, yet they are.

      Many Hasidic Jews don't consider "mainstream Jews" to be real Jews, yet they are.

      Who determines your faith - you, or other people?

      People who use labels get to define what those labels mean.

      Fundamentralists use "Muslim" in a very specific way, going around calling yourself a "Muslim" is not going to magically qualify you as a Muslim under the fundamentalist definition of that word.

      Let's rephrase, you can call yourself a "Republican" but if you only go to Democrat conventions and vote for Democrat candidates. Other "Republicans" are not going to accept you into their ranks.

    7. Re:Flamebait summary much? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Who determines your faith - you, or other people?

      The ones with the monopoly (or at least significant share of the oligopoly) on violence. It doesn't ultimately matter what you call yourself if others have the power to decide your fate based on THEIR beliefs.

      Ah, I see, so if someone threatens you with violence for what you believe in, you would stop believing in it?

      What weak character such a person would posses...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Flamebait summary much? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      When dealing with the external world and categorisation it is not "you" who determines others' label for your religion, but those "other people" who are the majority and make the rules. Those with the biggest metaphorical and physical guns decides who is in the club and who is a heretic.

      Bullshit. A person who truly has faith and conviction in a particular ideology would not allow threats of violence to change their position; No one has control over what I believe other than myself. If a person is the sort who would surrender their seemingly strongly held beliefs at the first hint of violence, than they didn't really hold those beliefs as strongly as they would like others to think.

      If the "majority" wanted to force you to abandon scientific reasoning in favor of hocus-pocus, and threatened to harm you if you didn't acquiesce, would you be so weak as to give in to their demands?

      You may call your religion the one true and holy continuation of Zoroastrianism, but until you are the majority denomination, or the most influential, the rest of the world will consider it to be a loony cult, minor sect, or alternate branch depending on size.

      Let 'em. Holding your own beliefs does not require social approval; otherwise, the Westboro Baptist Church would have disappeared long ago.

      Religious names and categorisation are social constructs, you may even claim to be a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, but until the rest of us agree to call you that you're still a human.

      Malarkey - To a Catholic, the Pope is the Pope, regardless of what Protestants think.

      The point your missing is that in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, "The Land of the Pure", Abdus Salam is not considered to be a Muslim. We both agree to call him Muslim, but that does not change his status in Pakistan.

      My point exactly - just because a certain group, in this instance the Pakistani government, says that you don't hold a certain belief, doesn't mean that you don't hold that belief; it means those guys are selfish assholes, but that by no means changes who you are or what you believe in.

      Similarly the Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran churches also claim to be the true Christian faith, none of them consider Mormons to be, and in their jurisdiction they can define what is and isn't Christian by whatever criteria they choose.

      The jurisdiction of faith is a construct of the individual mind, which brings me back 'round to my original message: The only person who can control what faith you follow is you.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:Flamebait summary much? by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      Said law was enforced by the founder of our "royal" family, the very Secular Mr Bhutto, who sold us this law for some cheap votes from the Islamic Coalition...

      People think all the evil was caused by his successor, the Islamic Hard-liner Military Dictator Zia, but you would surprised how many crazy laws originate from Bhutto's era. His own party now pretends those harsh laws were from the following era, because they can't be associated with them.

      I mean, Bhutto caused the 1974 massacre in Bangladesh (of fellow muslims!) just because his *extremely* inflated ego wouldn't accept the fact that he had lost the election.

      In other words, Religious or Secular, we are fucked either way. Nothing to do with the religion of peace.

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    10. Re:Flamebait summary much? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      In other words, Religious or Secular, we are fucked either way. Nothing to do with the religion of peace.

      I don't know if I would go that far. You guys have a section when you apply for a passport that you have to sign an agreement that Ahmadis are not Muslims, that sounds like a pretty far reach in the name of religion. That's a pretty odd requirement for getting a passport. Secular people definitely don't get a free pass, but laws in the name of or designed to appease Muslims aren't doing anyone any favors. Even if a secular person put the law into effect like you say, it wouldn't be necessary to do that if he wasn't trying to get support from Muslims. If majority Muslims wouldn't support a secular candidate who didn't do something like that then that's definitely a problem with religion.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:Flamebait summary much? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Many "mainstream Christians" don't consider Mormons to be Christians, yet they are.

      I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't consider Mormons to be Christians - they're neither monotheistic nor trinitarian.

      Yes, this is something we could debate, but I prefer to have some meaningful definitions for various labels, rather than just going with "if the guy says he's X, then he's X". If the latter, why bother with labels at all, since they can mean anything whatsoever?

    12. Re:Flamebait summary much? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Many "mainstream Christians" don't consider Mormons to be Christians, yet they are.

      I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't consider Mormons to be Christians - they're neither monotheistic nor trinitarian.

      Yes, this is something we could debate, but I prefer to have some meaningful definitions for various labels, rather than just going with "if the guy says he's X, then he's X".

      Ok, well, in all honesty, I personally don't consider most people who claim to be Christians as actual followers of Christ; Kind of hard to when you take into account the seemingly intrinsic selfishness and greed a lot of people exhibit. However, that doesn't necessarily negate my premise that the individual is the one who decides their faith; it merely points out that a lot of folks are ignorant of what the label they affix to themselves really means, and thus end up in a cycle of hypocrisy.

      If the latter, why bother with labels at all, since they can mean anything whatsoever?

      Why bother indeed - labels only serve to divide, and we humans have enough division amongst us, without having to come up with arbitrary rationale.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Flamebait summary much? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Labels only serve to categorize - which is a useful ability, unless you subscribe to the point of view that all human beings are exactly identical in all matters, which is obviously false. What you do based on that categorization is another matter.

    14. Re:Flamebait summary much? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1
      I think we're both guilty of over-generalizing.

      When it comes to labels like Scientist, Bus Driver, Village Idiot, et. al., you're right.

      When it comes to labels like Muslim, Democrat, Conservative, et. al. I'm right.

      What you do based on that categorization is another matter.

      That we can definitely agree on.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    15. Re:Flamebait summary much? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see, so if someone threatens you with violence for what you believe in, you would stop believing in it?

      What weak character such a person would posses...

      No, I didn't say you or I would stop believing. I meant things like this example from Gustav Mahler:

      During his ten years in Vienna, Mahler—who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism to secure the post—experienced regular opposition and hostility from the anti-Semitic press.

      He could convert (and did), but never stopped being considered a "dirty Jew" until he got to the United States where most people just didn't care.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  23. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by Boronx · · Score: 2

    Christians used to be this bad and they're getting worse again. They are becoming increasingly insulated from other ways of thinking and increasingly bigoted. This is in the US, of course, but I have no hope that it won't spread elsewhere

    So yeah, Christianity is a lot better now, and Islam is still the worst, but the trend isn't good.

  24. There is only one reasonable solution. by xerxesVII · · Score: 2

    The U.S. should invade Pakistan and never leave until they get their textbooks right.

    --
    "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
    1. Re:There is only one reasonable solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean with creationism, or intelligent design?

      Just curious.

    2. Re:There is only one reasonable solution. by vlm · · Score: 1

      The U.S. should invade Pakistan and never leave until they get their textbooks right.

      Maybe we should start with Texas first.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:There is only one reasonable solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. should invade Pakistan and never leave until they get their textbooks right.

      So when can we invade Texas ?
      Or should Texas declare its independence and say bye-bye to the US ?

    4. Re:There is only one reasonable solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'd rather vote that we cut off Texas and give it to Mexico.

    5. Re:There is only one reasonable solution. by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Well it would raise the US average IQ.

  25. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    So bombing is different if the victims are abortion doctors?

    The only difference is degree.
    Both of these are groups that oppress women and support the use of violence to spread their own flavor of crazy.

  26. Catch-22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science and religion have never been very good friends. Even the Vatican which has its own scientists has trouble with science on occasion. The thing that strikes me as truly evil about the situation is that the fundamentalists especially are causing their own problem. The more they do this kind of thing the more young people interested in science simply become atheist or switch religion from the one they are brought up with. From the outside the rest of the world starts quoting this as yet another reason that this religion or that religion is evil in some way. The Muslim religion is just fine its the extreme fundamentalists that can be problematic. Most people just want to get up in the morning and take care of their family. That's it, all there is to it.

    The other problem is that unlike current Christianity, Judaism and Islam incorporate governing of people into the religion and its practices. This makes it very difficult for a Muslim country to extricate the religion from the government. Its ingrained in everything they do in quite a few middle eastern countries. Not only that, but truthfully, I'd just as soon they keep it that way. Its part of what makes the middle east interesting to me. I just wish there was a way to get a handle on the extremists without seeming like the big bully on the block like we (the US) often do. I'm all about preserving culture while making the world a safer place for people to travel and experience that culture.

    By the by, I realize that Pakistan is not the middle east, but a large population of fundamentalist Muslims live there and they make the news quite a bit, but the middle east is the ancestral home of the religion.

    1. Re:Catch-22 by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I'm all about preserving culture"

      If a culture is toxic, then it has only entertainment value.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  27. Re:ebooks and digital media without physical mediu by vlm · · Score: 1

    too easy for them to accuse original, true e-copies as being false works

    There's always digital notary services to timestamp something, crypto signed documents to prove who signed it, etc.

    VERY unpopular (intentionally?) but hardly technologically impossible or an inherent issue with the media. If everyone used pencils with erasers, and refused to use indelible ink, that doesn't mean paper technology is at fault.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  28. All Fundies Are The Same by ThePeices · · Score: 1

    **NEWSFLASH**

    A country that is subjugated by religious fundamentalism commits all manner of evil acts and promotes despicable bigotry and hatred.

    More news at 11 !!

    1. Re:All Fundies Are The Same by Swampash · · Score: 1

      **NEWSFLASH**

      A country that is subjugated by religious fundamentalism commits all manner of evil acts and promotes despicable bigotry and hatred.

      More news at 11 !!

      And now for news OUTSIDE the USA...

    2. Re:All Fundies Are The Same by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      **NEWSFLASH**

      Countries run by anti-religious bigots commit all manner of evil acts and promote despicable hatred.

      More news at 11 !!

      And now for news INSIDE the USA . . .

      Who gives to charity?

       

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  29. No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are endless apologists who make endless garbage legion reasons on accepting Islam.

    Its like every other religion, blah blah blah.
    Its not like every other religion. The banning of Kite flying, the banning of music, the mass mutilation of women ('Its an African thing, not Islamic!, until you examine Egypt, and then examine cases into the middle east, and then discover the harsh realities), the war on education, the hatred of everyone but their own religion, and even then sometimes only their own sect.

    Islamophobia is a bullshit term created at the UN. And it and the twisted fucked up human rights garbage at the UN is defined by 50+ Islamic states that work as a block to denounce everyone and anyone else. Their attempts to create global laws on blashemy and to create a shield against action against their 7th century backward, rape legalising fucked up, child molesting, retarded religion is only a pin drop ina fucking huge ocean of the shit they are trying every single day.

    I have an Islamic Human Rights Organisation Shop in my Highstreet. The only fucking thing islamists can show me or anyone is how they abuse human rights on a scale no one else on the planet has done in a long time, and they do so in fucking spades. And they are fronting PR and propaganda that smoke screens and covers up an ever more despicable and intolerant religion and its activities around a globe in a modern age where that PR and propaganda by itself would make Goebbels happy.

  30. Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khan, who played a key role in developing the country's nuclear bomb and later confessed to spreading nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, is considered a national hero.
     
    KAHNNNNNNNNNNNN!

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1
      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    2. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      YAAAAAAWN

      --
      /* No Comment */
  31. Ben Franklin and the War on Lightning by Freddybear · · Score: 1

    http://www.fi.edu/learn/sci-tech/lightning-rod/lightning-rod.php?cts=benfranklin-weather-electricity ...in addition to wanting to prove that lightning was electricity, Franklin began to think about protecting people, buildings, and other structures from lightning. This grew into his idea for the lightning rod. Franklin described an iron rod about 8 or 10 feet long that was sharpened to a point at the end. He wrote, "the electrical fire would, I think, be drawn out of a cloud silently, before it could come near enough to strike..."

    1. Re:Ben Franklin and the War on Lightning by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      http://www.fi.edu/learn/sci-tech/lightning-rod/lightning-rod.php?cts=benfranklin-weather-electricity ...in addition to wanting to prove that lightning was electricity, Franklin began to think about protecting people, buildings, and other structures from lightning. This grew into his idea for the lightning rod. Franklin described an iron rod about 8 or 10 feet long that was sharpened to a point at the end. He wrote, "the electrical fire would, I think, be drawn out of a cloud silently, before it could come near enough to strike..."

      Abraham Lincoln fights vampires, Ben Franklin fights Thor!

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  32. to stop racism thats why. by Faisal+Rehman · · Score: 1

    Wiped to finish difference and racism because everyone is noble.

  33. The Middle Ages called they want their idiots back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let em stay in the dark ages if that's where they want to be. The rest of the world has moved on, and so has the good doctor.

  34. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comparing the Extremism the Fundamentalist Islamists get away with around the world to whatever drama the Fundamentalist Christians try to perpetrate is -- really -- just ridiculous.

    Not really - Just a matter of degree, limited solely by how much power each group has over their respective countries... AIDS sucks more than the flu, but you don't really want to catch either of them.

    But hey, I hear ya - It makes perfect sense to devote the full resources of the US government to hashing out whether or not whores... er... "young women"... should have the right to autonomy over their own bodies when it comes to reproductive health. Certainly, no fine upstanding Fundies would suggest beating people to death just because their god whispers sweet, sweet nothings to them in the dark...


    Religion is a disease, which any sane person would seek to cure ASAP.

  35. It's not just a problem with sectarianism by jheath314 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I would argue that on top of the sectarian issues in this particular case, there is a major lack scientific achievement in that region of the world. Dr. Abdus Salam is one of only two Nobel laureates from a Muslim country. Islamic Universities have a shockingly low output (only 300 out of the 1800 universities in the region have even _one_ faculty member who has ever published anything. Compare that to Western Universities where typically every faculty member will have publications.)

    Part of the problem might be the rote learning paradigm that dominates in the middle east. Free inquiry and critical thinking are probably discouraged in a region dominated by so many authoritarian regimes. However, I would argue that one of the main reasons science has failed to flourish in Arab-Islamic countries is the legacy of one man: Abu Hamid al-Ghazali.

    Al-Ghazali helped codify and unify several competing schools of Islamic thought, binding them around the central premise of rejecting outside influences to concentrate on spiritualism and devotion to God. While European philosophy focused on understanding the material world, al-Ghazali focused instead on the supernatural. After the Crusades destroyed the Islamic world's scientific Golden Age, al-Ghazadi's anti-scientific philosophy held sway and kept the region from experiencing the kind of Renaissance that moved Europe out of the dark ages.

    --
    Procrastination Man strikes again!
    1. Re:It's not just a problem with sectarianism by benjfowler · · Score: 2

      Blaming the Crusaders is just dirty Muslim propaganda.

      It was the Mongols who sacked Baghad in 1258, in addition to a parade of extremely ignorant and backwards "thinkers" who turned the Islamic world from world leaders into the third world basketcase it is today.

    2. Re:It's not just a problem with sectarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've seen Iran has been producing - ahem exporting - fine minds
      for quite a while.

    3. Re:It's not just a problem with sectarianism by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      It's also terribly ironic because increased contact with the Muslim world via Andalusia is one of the most important developments that sparked the early Renaissance in Europe.

    4. Re:It's not just a problem with sectarianism by poemofatic · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are many fine minds from the region. but the institutions fail them. Who knows what the state of physics would be if there were world class Persian institutions supported by a liberal culture?

      --

      When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.

    5. Re:It's not just a problem with sectarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it was tag-team (Crusades + Mongols). It's a sad commentary on the way that wars can cause a once great society to fail when it loses its focus.

  36. Hey, Islam is better than Scientology! by Theovon · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if you piss off the Muslims, they just kill you. The Scientologists are much worse. They'll sue you and ruin you financially!

    [Note: I am not an apologist for Scientology. I'm being ironic. Scientology is a goofball religion just like all the rest of them.]

    1. Re:Hey, Islam is better than Scientology! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Scientology is a cult supported by Ponzi schemes and fraud, not a religion.

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

      Nothing goofball about it. It's far more pernicious than that.

    2. Re:Hey, Islam is better than Scientology! by Theovon · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know. I was just talking about the beliefs they profess. Dianetics and all that. I wonder how many higher-ups actually believe any of it. Are the mostly in it for the money, or do the thing they're doing some good?

  37. It is many things by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    Republic means the country is devided into states who have representatives involved in goverment. Large countries(empires) need some form of additional structure. Republic is on of the ways to structure an empire. Democracy is about how decisisons are made. Those representatives are selected by voters and they decide policy between each other by voting. Plus the president is selected by voters. Federalism means that the states each have their own goverments and those goverements have power. In each state those goverements are selected by voters. In some of the states policy is decided directly by voting. So the USA is a Democracy. The USA is a Republic. It is a Federation. It isn't Wigg, Communist, Socialist, or Green though.

    1. Re:It is many things by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Republic means the country is devided[sic] into states who have representatives

      Not really. Your social studies teacher was just kinda making that up or passing along a falsehood that was spread to her. A "Republic" is really just the alternative to having kings. It just kinda sounds similar so it's a handy way for teachers to explain it. Now, having representatives is certainly one way to impliment a republic, common even. But the word has a meaning and that isn't it.

    2. Re:It is many things by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Decisions are made through representation.

      See the Federalist No. 10.

  38. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

    It's really kind of easy to see who really has the agenda here with the ad hominem attack.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
  39. Mormons are the US equivalent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read up on the relation between the Ahmadi sect and mainstream Islam, you'll find a surprising number of similarities to the LDS Church and its relation to mainstream Christianity. Both groups consider their founders to be prophets helping to support and restore the religion, but do not set up their prophets as above, or superior to the primary source of revelation (Jesus for Christianity and Muhammad for Islam). Mormons consider themselves Christians, and the Ahmadi consider themselves Muslims. And in both cases, many in the mainstream religion completely reject the sect's membership in the faith, seeing their more modern prophets as a blasphemy and persecute the sects quite significantly. In the case of the US, you have to go back to when the country was significantly more Christian in its governance to find persecution of Mormons on the scale that Ahmadi Muslims face in Pakistan.

    (I imagine that the main difference in reactions for American readers is that the now-banned practice of polygamy was probably the main trigger for Mormon persecution in the US, which still offends modern American sensibilities. The argument over Ahmadiyya seems to be about the whether Ahmad's status conflicts with Muhammad's status as the final prophet, which most Americans don't care about at all.)

  40. ... but lightning is also religious! by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    ... but those killed by lightning are also killed by religion! After all, isn't it Zeus (or was it Mercury) that throws the bolts down to earth when he's angry?

    1. Re:... but lightning is also religious! by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      That would be Zeus (Greek) or Jupiter (Roman). Zeus is a Greek God while Mercury is a Roman God.

      Only three days remain until Thor's day or Jeudi (Jupiter's day) like the French call it.

    2. Re:... but lightning is also religious! by cpotoso · · Score: 1

      Yep, I always get my greeks and romans mixed-up... Thanks!

    3. Re:... but lightning is also religious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mercury was the winged foot messenger of the Gods - most of which was lifted from the descriptions of the Greek god Hermes.

      Most of the Roman ones with the same names as planets are lifted from the Greek Pantheon.

  41. I used to own a store with a Ahmadiyya member by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was quite interesting. As an atheist, while his family wasn't comfortable with the idea of him opening a tech store with someone not of their faith, I was more welcome than someone convinced of another faith. When bored, we'd often discuss his faith, and his history with it. He had come to Canada as a refugee around age 14, and eventually acquired citizenship (He deserved it--he busted his balls when it came to work and spoke better English than many born Canadians I know). The primary focus of their faith is to teach that (basically) Jihad is wrong, and that the Muslim faith is one of complete peace. A good friend of his was a long standing member of their mosque and would affirm this, as would anyone else I questioned of their faith. None of them would ever be pushy and, frankly, were a hell of a lot more fun to be around than Christians.

    I, of course, never converted, but I did gain some insight into the problems of the Muslim religion and exactly why countries like Pakistan are screwed up.

  42. Enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pissed off! i can't bear these damn "muslim" dictatator and terrorist any more all they do is screwing islam's reputation all over the world!

  43. Why did my mod points expire? by zuki · · Score: 1

    Not really - Just a matter of degree, limited solely by how much power each group has over their respective countries... AIDS sucks more than the flu, but you don't really want to catch either of them. But hey, I hear ya - It makes perfect sense to devote the full resources of the US government to hashing out whether or not whores... er... "young women"... should have the right to autonomy over their own bodies when it comes to reproductive health. Certainly, no fine upstanding Fundies would suggest beating people to death just because their god whispers sweet, sweet nothings to them in the dark... Religion is a disease, which any sane person would seek to cure ASAP.

    Wish I could have given you a nudge with this... thank for posting.

    1. Re:Why did my mod points expire? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Wish I could have given you a nudge with this... thank for posting.

      You might be interested to in the results of rule by atheist governments.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  44. Matter of education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ones who did the deed aren't well educated people. Educated people don't entertain such discourse.
    They simply ignore the ignorants and carry on. We know who he is and what he did .
    Too bad , he, like so many , does not get credit now for his work at home.
    Ignorants that know nothing of his work and for whom the science don't make sense for they can't understand it.
    There's gifted and not so gifted .. these happen to be the less gifted people acting the only way they know.

    Education is the key.

    " Never argue with an idiot , they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. "

  45. please remind me the religion of Germany + Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    in WWII, which saw the worst mass genocide in human history.

  46. Very common on Slashdot by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    I think it is partially just people who are very self centered. They need everything to be about their lives. So when there is a story about things happening in other nations, they have to try to find a way to spin it around to be about the US, so it is about them. There is a story about something, good or bad, in another nation and they have to start up with how it is or is not like that in the US and so on and so forth. They continually steer the discussion back to themselves.

    The other part is for some people, many of whom hang out on Slashdot, it is trendy to hate the US and to feel like they are "oppressed". So everything needs to become about how bad the US is. Another country does something bad? Try to find a way to say the US does the same thing. Another country does something good? Whine about how the US does not do that. Everything is turned in to how the US is bad because that is what they wish it to be.

    All in all it equals a situation where any story about another country has people making posts to try and show the Us in a bad light, rather than discussing the story.

    1. Re:Very common on Slashdot by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I think it is partially just people who are very self centered.

      Do you own a mirror?

      All in all it equals a situation where any story about another country has people making posts to try and show the Us in a bad light, rather than discussing the story.

      Hypocrisy: wanting to mock others for XYZ and then getting all butthurt when someone points out you do XYZ as well.

  47. all those crazy old religions... by v1 · · Score: 2

    The most important difference between say, christians and muslims is one of those groups still reads it to the letter today. Christianity started getting over that after the crusades. Islam is still living in what, the 600's or so?

    Most religions started with tenants built around conquering other religious groups. Back then it was simply a matter of survival. Most religions either did it or were conquered and destroyed as a result. What we have left now are the "winners", but a few of them are still fighting, with Islam containing the most public, radical, and fundamental batch of nuts of the bunch. And they aren't the least bit concerned about behaving like 600AD barbarians to do it. And the rest of the world tends to frown on that now. These "fundamentalist clerics" have a lot in common with vile little dictators that are using religion as a means of creating power and influence. I can't help but wonder what percentage of them is a real religious leader and what percentage are just taking advantage of their religion and their influence.

    And most of these religions' holy books flat out say that the world belongs to them and everyone else can either join or it's ok to kill them. That wasn't meant for the modern world. I have zero respect for that attitude now. Anyone that agrees with a book that says it's their god-given right to force me to do something or kill me for not doing it deserves that Hellfire comin' down their cave.

    Unfortunately it gives the rest of the more modern/moderate/reasonable followers a really bad rep. I think right now the fastest way to get discriminated against in the US would be to make your Islamic religion known. Moreso than race etc. A lot of that is the govt P.R. engine at work, but you can't place all the blame on them. You're just going to get a lot of bad bias when you're associated with nuts that like to blow up large groups of uninvolved innocents, particularly from the part of that pool of innocents that would prefer to keep breathing. The moderates need to do something about their fundamentalist relations. Either smack some sense into them or split. The extremists are the one to blame for the bias, not the extremists' targets. All I hear are the moderates complaining about the public grouping them together. They are a group. They are a part of the group, and they either need to do something, affect change within the group, or leave it. "Guilt-by-association" is impossible to dodge. So far of all the religious conversations I've had with followers of Islam, every one of them still thinks the bad light that shines on them is 100% the fault of the world, they don't see the root of the problem, and aren't in any hurry to do anything about it.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  48. No true Scotsman ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would admit to having feelings!

  49. Re:nice agitprop garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone who's commented here.

    Except you.

  50. Re:nice agitprop garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but then again, you probably do "give a shit", or else you wouldn't have taken the time to post your comment in a vain attempt to persuade others to not "give a shit."

  51. Meanwhile ... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile a delegation of American Christian Fundamentalists are said to be going on a fact finding mission to Pakistan to see how they did it.So that they can repeat the process in the United States only for Darwin and his book The Origin OF Species.

  52. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by tanujt · · Score: 2

    Comparing the Extremism the Fundamentalist Islamists get away with around the world to whatever drama the Fundamentalist Christians try to perpetrate is -- really -- just ridiculous

    So, let's not learn anything from the past then? And by the past I mean of course the Crusades and the Dark Ages. Fundamentalist anything is detrimental to the growth of a peaceful, progressive society.

  53. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by sneakyimp · · Score: 2

    Having been raised Christian, I would like to agree that my inherited religion is the nobler one, but I feel it is necessary to point out that a) there is a lot of equally ludicrous effort in the United States [q.v. young-earth creationism, Sarah Palin who does the speaking-in-tongues bit, anti-evolution activities, etc.] and b) supposedly Christian nations have perpetrated warfare and genocide on other people at the behest of their holiest teachings [q.v. Deuteronomy chapters 7 and 20, The Crusades, and the invasion of Iraq]. Conflating the two is not ridiculous at all. On the contrary. As an exercise in introspection, it should trigger some soul searching in terms of teaching and foreign policy.

  54. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up.

  55. Lightening strikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I've heard of this! The terrorists have finally found a way to weaponize Michael Jackson's disease!

    I, for one, am investing in HEPA filters!

  56. Re:please remind me the religion of Germany + Russ by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    Germany = Catholic, Russia = Orthodox.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  57. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AIDS vs the flu: I think you gave a great example of how "just a matter of degrees" can be a significant difference indeed.

  58. National Hero? by ukemike · · Score: 1

    Alexander Abad-Santos writes that in any other country, the late Dr. Abdus Salam would be a national hero: he's the Nobel laureate in physics who laid the groundwork for the biggest physics discovery in the past 30 years--the Higgs boson.

    Seriously? ANY OTHER country? There are American Nobel laureates every year, and they are not typically considered national heroes. I bet 98% of Americans can't name a single US Nobel laureate from the last ten years (without the aid of reference materials). I can't.

    --
    -- QED
  59. Re:Never a fork for, your own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the same problem pakistan has.

  60. People in glass houses by Swampash · · Score: 2

    Just wait until a US political leader announces that he or she is an atheist, then watch how quickly that person gets erased from political life.

    But those crazy religious people over there in Oogaboogastan are totally worse than our crazy religious people. Totally.

    1. Re:People in glass houses by stdarg · · Score: 2

      That's a funny example. I wonder what you think would happen in Oogaboogastan if a Muslim political leader announced he or she is an atheist. You think they would get erased from political life? OR erased from life?

      I guess you think the crazy religious people over there are just the same as our crazy religious people. You should try reading international news sometime.

    2. Re:People in glass houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you think the crazy religious people over there are just the same as our crazy religious people. You should try reading international news sometime.

      So true - in those crazy countries they cut off your hand for certain crimes - in our civilised Christian countries they shoot out both your elbows, both your knees and both your ankles...

    3. Re:People in glass houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, all those Christian suicide bombers I have to wade through on my way to the office...

  61. Typical Fundamentalist Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever I'm in a discussion with someone about how the world should be and they make the classic mistake of assuming that humans are fundamentally good and that it's government/law/corporations which drag us down, I look to religion first for my counter-examples. Here's another real winner and more evidence in favour of the fact that many human beings are just a potent mix of "coward", "stupid" and "evil".

  62. I'm Pakistani and I'm proud of Dr. Abdus Salam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the source of this story? I'm a Pakistani and I'm proud of Dr. Adbus Salam. Pakistan Government has recognized him with following awards:

    Sitara-e-Pakistan for contribution to science in Pakistan (1959)
    Pride of Performance Medal and Award (1959)
    Nishan-e-Imtiaz for outstanding performance in Scientific projects in Pakistan (1979)

    1. Re:I'm Pakistani and I'm proud of Dr. Abdus Salam by slashmojo · · Score: 1

      An apparently Pakistani news site for one (which is actually mentioned in the summary)

      http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/12579/an-achievement-we-cant-call-our-own-higgs-boson-done-erum/

  63. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    The only difference is degree.

    Incorrect, Hater.

    The guys (or is it guy? seriously, this has happened... how many times in your lifetime?) who blow up abortion clinics are nutjobs who, if they weren't exploding an abortion clinic "for Christ" would be blowing up a Stop-N-Shop for Thor or setting fire to a Civil War statue because it's Tuesday. And at those few-and-far-between times when it DOES happen, the leaders of every Christian denomination typically condemn it, distancing themselves and their sects as far as possible from the psycho. Look it up.

    Islamist Extremists blow up buildings, torture women, and stone gays not *despite* their leaders' teachings, but *because* of them. These are not crazies who took a verse or two from a holy book and twisted its meaning, these are jihadists participating in a campaign of institutionalized violence. And when they do, as the body count grows, the silence from the kinder, gentler Muslim community is almost as deafening as the rants from the Wahabi mullahs.

    Christianity and Islam went through a despicable and barbarous period of religious violence in the Middle Ages. Christianity grew out of it. The world is still waiting on Islam. To equate in any qualitative or quantitative way the violence from the "extremist" wings of these religions in the modern era is to admit to bigotry or ignorance.

  64. Re:please remind me the religion of Germany + Russ by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Germany = statist ersatz-religion, Russia = statist ersatz-religion

    But in fact, the WW2 is mostly remarkable for the death rate (i.e. deaths per unit time). By raw body count, the most bloodthirsty regime in history was China under Mao.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  65. Cart and Horse. by physburn · · Score: 1

    Quantum electrodynamics came first, you can hardly unify QED, QCD and the weak force, before QED been inverted. Actually Dr Adbus Salam with Steven Weinberg and Sheldon_Glashow , unified QED with the weak force. Grand unification hasn't been done correctly, although alams model with Jogesh Pati, SU(4) by SU(2)_left by SU(2)_right by U(1), is still very well regarded as a potential grand unification model.

  66. Fucking Monkeys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These Pakistanis and Indians are a step above flinging poop at each other.

  67. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by stdarg · · Score: 1

    Haven't you heard that America is controlled by the Religious Right?

    And that the vast majority of Muslims are good peaceful people?

    By that logic America is more in the grip of extremists than any Muslim country. So there's some problem somewhere...

  68. The Totalitarian State by Slur · · Score: 1

    Set aside the religious fundamentalist aspect of the thing, and what you see is totalitarianism in action. Indoctrination is so deep that the people fully sanction their own oppression. It's a nationalistic form of Stockholm Syndrome. Every powerful regime uses religious and nationalistic pretenses to make heretics, infidels, and apostates out of the most rational, individualistic, and liberal people in the society. Under the hypnosis of a culture that promotes alienation and fear, the mob gleefully hunts down and tears apart all independent-minded individuals.

    Westerners forget that for much of the world it is nearly impossible to cultivate a modern, rational, humanist intellect.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  69. Stagnant culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why science in the Muslim world stagnated after only a brief period of enlightenment.
    It succumbed to the pointless, rigid, intolerant totalitarianism of fundamentalist religion.

    Where this is relaxed, wonderful things happen, such as Dr. Abdus Salam's work.
    But then the sticky mire of the mullahs overwhelms it, stifling it, sucking it under and suffocating it.

  70. Re:please remind me the religion of Germany + Russ by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

    Um. Actually, Germany = Lutheran, for the most part.

  71. Re:please remind me the religion of Germany + Russ by Genda · · Score: 1

    I had always though that Stalin had a lock on the most murdered... however there are a lot of different ways to account for those killed including direct genocide and policies directly resulting in the deaths of millions. Stalin rates in from 6-60 million depending on how you measure and Mao rates at a truly whopping 49-78 million. That is some busy little yellow guy (I can say that, I was born in Taipei :-)

  72. Assange vs Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama gives to a world a new wars and stuxnet and flame.
    Assange gives to a world new democracy.
    What is the US verdict? Obama has got Nobel Price of Peace ;-)
    What a joke...

  73. You idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "being in a shit-hole place with shit education where everyone has been miserably poor for centuries" - and what CAUSED all of those things, idiot? The PEOPLE who live there - and the fact that they are MUSLIMS helped! You idiot!

    "any muslim you meet in the states is almost certainly a non-violent person"

    Nice try, nobody's buying it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnJBW49afzg

    Is that good enough for you? Maybe those people "aren't real muslims", probably... Did I mention that you were an IDIOT?

    Muslims are the scum of the Earth, you obviously know little about them. Where have you been?

  74. Analysis please by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is for 'tech' stuff. We shouldn't rubbish religions, even if we agree they are rubbish. Why do some communities evolve some religions? What happens when incompatible beliefs clash? Why do new religions keep starting, just as the old ones get sensible? Might fundamentalist religions have value in post-meltdown communities? If all these were (defective) operating systems, we might make more sense of things.

  75. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    So No true scotsman is how you choose to respond? Pretty telling, when you can't even come up with a better line than that.

    In the middles ages islam was new, and actually far ahead of being civilized of european christianity. Where do you think we got 0?

  76. Are we Americans supporting the wrong side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are we supporting Pakistan with foreign aid when it is clear the country, as a whole, is diametrically opposed to what we in the West stand for? Would it make more sense to change sides and support India? India is the largest democratic republic in population. India also has faced terrorism from foreign terrorists. India also believes technology and learning is the key for future survival of itself. India and America seem to be somewhat compatible politically for now.

    So remind me again why Pakistan is a "strategic ally" for the US and not India?

  77. Very Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its really fascinating to see how so many people (supposedly "fact" oriented" and "have logical minds" ) have published firey opinions and made very interesting judgments about things which they neither know about nor have actually read.
    I would have hoped that at least on slashdot there were some logical minds and independant thinkers that get facts and think for themselves before writing and are not just echos for what the media wants them to think.
    Did any of you actually bother to read what you critisized. If you can accept an amazon review from me on a book that I never read, then then allow yourselves to make such "reviews" of things you did not even read once.
    My comment: Read yourself, read the thing and not about it and be factual. Do not let others or the media intimidate you or socially force you into the way they want you to be.

  78. I was wrong by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

    Wow I was totally wrong. Republic means so much less than I thought it did. Why anyone say the united states is a republic and not a democracy is wierd. By their very nature most democracies would be republics.

    1. Re:I was wrong by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      It's a common misconception.
      Also, I believe you meant to say Whig, whatever that means, not wigg.
      By "Green" you've got to mean either eco-friendly-in-a-consumerist-sort-of-way, or the green party. Since the environment is not something you can simply ignore and since we have things like the EPA, the USA arguably IS green.
      The term "communist" is loaded chock full of different definitions, baggage, history, and "characters". No one could really agree what it meant even when Marx was alive, but BOY did they write a lot about it. But I think it's safe to say that the USA is not a commune.
      The term "socialist" is also kind of loaded with it's own baggage, but it's got a more clear definition. And yes, since the USA has welfare programs for people and corporations, we qualify as socialist. I believe the other end of the stick is capitalism, and we do that too.

      What? Did you think this was going to be easy? Most of these terms are just handy placeholders to describe common themes and/or labels to describe your political enemies. Their use is tied to the political landscape at the time.
      In general though, the argument is that the USA is MORE/LESS ________ than other countries. We are less socialist than Sweden. We are more green than China. We are less... whiggy? than we used to be.

  79. They have? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Have they really?
    Perhaps they just tend to make a different sort of mistake in the media these days, or maybe they're better at covering it up.

    I suppose it's a lucky thing that other religious groups aren't causing problems.

    Thankfully, they're tackling the problem at the source by ensuring people get a proper education around such issues, all around the world.

  80. welcome to Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Texas...
    Sadly there are those that would rewrite history and text books to their own ends.

            We seem to to be at war with critical thinking AND thinking with a memory many levels.
    It is not new I recall Nixon running for pores and my Dad remarked remember what he
    and the McCarthy bunch did. "Are you now or have you ever been a communist....". None
      of his history was visited by the medics. And we know that turned out!

    Consider the astonishment to a jury . Only consider what is in evidence. Same for patients ....

    Education is both learning history AND critical thinking.

  81. KHAN!!!!!!!!! by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Well, somebody had to say it...

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  82. Re:please remind me the religion of Germany + Russ by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    To "clock" Stalin at 60 million, you have to do various kinds of tricks like counting "demographic losses" from Holodomor (i.e. not counting just the people who died directly, but also their unborn children that would have been born otherwise).

  83. Re:please remind me the religion of Germany + Russ by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    This may help:

    The estimates of the deaths caused by communism are staggering indeed: 65 million in China, 20 million in the former Soviet Union, two million each in Cambodia and North Korea, 1.7 in Africa, one million each in Vietnam and Eastern Europe and 150,000 in Latin America. -- Human Events review of The Black Book of Communism
     

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  84. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    They are becoming increasingly insulated from other ways of thinking and increasingly bigoted

    Pot, meet kettle.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  85. Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! by Boronx · · Score: 1

    How do you figure? It doesn't take a bigot to recognize a bigot.