Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Arabia Calls For Global Internet Censorship Body
Onymous Hero writes "Following the recent YouTube video 'The Innocence of Muslims' and the subsequent Muslim violence, Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.' The World Telecommunications Policy Forum (a UN body) is the vehicle by which Saudi Arabia (and possibly other states) will try to use to implement a global set of internet content standards."
NO!
I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos. But this is way over the line. This asks for the ability to apply censorship rules to everyone. They should be bitch slapped and sent out of the room.
How about we tell them to stop being so sensitive and they can just ignore it.
-SaNo
If your feelings get hurt every time someone calls you out on your religious convictions, either you're not confident enough of your religion or you need to stop believing in fantasies.
Either you believe in freedom of speech, and all the nastiness that goes with it, or you want the world to adopt your narrow-minded, pathetic excuses for why women shouldn't drive, be allowed to walk alone or meet with men who aren't their relatives.
When you drag yourselves up to the 20th century, then we can discuss things you have issues with.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Freedom of expression is supposed to be uncomfortable and challenge public order. That's the whole idea.
"international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order"
I agree absolutely. Let's set the standard: public disorder - destroying property, killing people - is a crime. Freedom of expression is not. Pretending that freedom of expression forced someone to violence is a transparent and pathetic excuse.
According to TFA, Saudia Arabia is still blaming the video clip for the violence. It is now well-established that the violence was pre-planned; the date of September 11th was picked carefully. The video clip was merely a transparent excuse, and the upload may, in fact, have been coordinated to coincide with the violence. Saudia Arabia is trying to use the situation to impose their fundamentalist values on the rest of the world. No thanks.
So, yes, let's set a standard: Free speech is too important to compromise.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
they should do their own censoring and leave the rest of the world's internets alone, china did it, what nations should do is change their system to a nationwide LAN (sortof), and when connecting to websites served from IP address of other nations it should go through a filter if that is what they want to do, if i want to look at naked women eating barbecue pork while holding poker chips with her twat that is my business and should not be of any concern of some religious zealots in some other nation
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Welcome to the 21st century. Want to be a part of it? ...then grow the frack up.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
If your deity needs intercession by mortals to prevent others from speaking against him, he is probably not what you are thinking he is. So there's that, but the real thing I want to say, to anyone who would presume to limit my speech on religious grounds is "Piss off!". Seriously. Get a fucking clue and realize that your spiritual path is yours, and yours alone, to walk. The rest of us don't have to join you. Get it?
- The Constitution of the United States says that any treaty to which the United States shall be beholden must be ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate.
- The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and prohibits the Congress from passing legislation limiting expression.
- Every single Senator took an oath to uphold the Constitution upon taking office.
Any vote by the US Senate to ratify such UN action would be a direct violation of the Constitution which they swore to uphold. At the very least, I can't imagine that there are 67 senators looking to retire at the end of the term in which this treaty would be voted on for ratification; to say nothing of the Supreme Court throwing it out like a 105mph fast ball...
Hey, if this thing gets passed in other countries, maybe the US will become the best place to host Internet content...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Judging from the comments and reactions it is clearly obvious that religious nutjobs are pioneers of trolling.
Ah hell go burn some books if it makes you happy
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Yeah or create your own separate network for the caliphate. You can call it camelnet.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They only want to censor Tim Berners-Lee's(UK) bit of the internet. I blame Tommy Flowers(UK) for starting this all. Charles Babbage(UK) wouldn't have let this happen. ;)
the Global Internet Censorship Body will ensure equal unrest and humiliation for all.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Invading Iraq for oil, did not support
Invading Afghanistan to build pipeline, did not support
Nuking Saudi Arabia for stifling freedom of speech, Let me press the button.
They need to turn off the computer if they are offended but growing the fuck up would be even better.
If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it. -- Calvin Coolidge
Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.'
There is a "crying need for international collaboration" to address the livid intolerance exhibited by the Monarchists (we've been there before -- self-absorbed, lazy and inbred) pissed that 6 billion people aren't under their thumb.
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
Fuck you, and your religion too.
Your pal,
OldSport
To which the United States replied: "But if we don't let them say what they want on the internet, how is the NSA supposed to spy on everything they do?!?"
In response to Saudi Arabia, I would recommended that all religious people and all religion content be removed from the internet. Reactionary, close minded ideology is clearly incompatible with this fast paced open medium. I'll be better for all of us if we take a bold step and separate them.
Oh, really? So what was this all about?
How is this even theoretically possible? Oh you crazy arabs, the RIAA would've done it like a decade ago.
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Go read some history books! What a crock!
Take your censorship and go f*ck yourself with it.
Sincerely,
The Free World
p.s. we can still buy your oil, right?
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
Are you arguing that what non-Muslims should do is commit genocide against Muslims? If you're not, could you explain how invading Iraq and Afghanistan and applying economic sanctions to Iran, Syria, and the Gaza Strip constitute "appeasing"?
I am officially gone from
It's going to happen some day. The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
One little tragic baby step at a time.
Absolutely. They wand a censorship board that will say "kill the non-believers wherever you find them" is a valid religious sentiment, but "Sharia Law is incompatible with human rights" will be banned.
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
What a load of bullshit. There have been plenty of empires that have done this throughout the last 3000+ years. Plenty of them pushed their laws and their cultures on their conquered territories.
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
Have you forgotten the Mongolians? What about the European Colonization period? Or the creation and expansion of the Chinese empire? Or the subjigation of the neighboring tribes by the Incas? What about the Aztecs and their demanded subservience of the tribes around them? Egypt certainly never crushed Kush.... and hell, Assyria played very nice.
What, this wasnt "the world?". Back then "the world" was limited by technology.
Stop being so naive.
Those are things called "facts". They are just inconvenient things that get in the way of unsubstantiated rants.
We really should support it. There is nothing at the moment that creates more public disturbance than the Qur'an. We support Saudi Arabia in this and instantly work on banning this book all over the world. Then we can start on the Bible and other religious texts.
The sad thing is that these morons don't understand the words that are coming out of their own mouths.
Along the tortuous path of life, certain things irreversibly change over time. Accelerating the path to freedom from the mental shackles of organized, dogmatic religion would appear to be one of the direct consequences of inter-networked people freely and finally comparing notes between different brands of those good old 'All-powerful-being / be very scared / you should feel guilty, you unworthy scum' methods of mind control that have been in place for hundreds of years.
This happens to exactly be one of the first telltale signs of their unwilling abdication, as their hateful 'religion of peace' disintegrates in the face of a collective, planet-wide yawn. A day to celebrate!!
Good riddance.
Practical suggestion: close yourself off from the rest of the world instead. Miss you we will not.
Good luck, don't let the door hit you on the way out, and thanks for all the (fossilized) fish oil!
Then why are Muslims also attacking in so many other countries? There are Muslim terrorist attacks, all over the world, every day, and it's been going on like that for decades. Muslims are actively attacking not only Jews, and Christians, but Hindus, Buddhists, and of course, other Muslims.
How could this all be due to US mid-east policy?
parent poster seems to forget that the islamic MISSION is to forcibly convert the world. now, later, they don't care: as long as the world gets converted, their book is happy.
christianity also wants to convert the world and it did it in quite a bloody way in the middle ages. but the moslems also were just as bad, just at different periods of time.
and today, they are THE WOST in the world when it comes to tolerance. there is no culture that is less tolerant, in fact.
and there is no perma peace with them. there can't be. until you are one of them, they consider you evil and either convertable or kill-worthy.
yes, its in their scriptures. those stupid, twisted, madlib sounding scriptures they love so much.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
How about international collaboration on having some self restraint and not causing others physical harm to others any time something in the world doesn't go your way?
You can't debate or find compromise with peoples that believe there is only one true God and that anyone not sharing that faith is wrong and unworthy of life. The only appropriate response to Saudi Arabia is to fuck off.
is there *any* country out there that doesn't censor the net in one way or the other?
Some for copyright (e.g. Youtube in germany), some for religious reasons (Iran), others call political comments a crime (China), others crush down on gambling sites cause that's a crime there (USA),
And they all have in common that they are "legal" and "fair" and "justified" as the gouvernment responsible for this or that souverign corner of the world declared it illegal. usually with best intents and in complete contradiction with the laws of that other corner of the world.
Deal with it. everyone is already censoring the net. And the differences become rather small if you recognize that the biggest difference is your point of view.
bickerdyke
“Any reasonable person would know that this film would foment violence and, indeed, many innocent persons have died and been injured with this film as a root cause,” the Saudi submission said.
A reasonable person doesn't watch something if he knows it's going to offend him.
Bless, I actually wondered how far I'd get down the thread before someone started mouthing off about things they don't understand, which is often the case when the UN is in a story, I had to actually get quite far this time before I reached your post.
So let me explain for you, the UN is a bit like your government, except whilst your government represents the population of your nation, the UN represents the governments to the world.
So a bit like when a member of your government comes up with some braindead law and no one wants, the UN works in the same way, but with far more safeguards. Saudi may well be mouthing off about this sort of thing but it wont happen, because the only UN body that comes close to this sort of thing would be the ITU, and the ITU requires unanimity on votes, and as the West wont vote for this measure at the ITU, it wont actually happen.
Think of Saudi as that annoying representative in your government that cries think of the children, and comes up with ideas that frankly scare the shit out of you, but are thankfully so insane, that they don't actually ever get passed.
Really though, the UN is less scary than government in this respect, because sovereign nations can opt-out of it, or elements of it, whereas you can't opt-out of your government. There are some exceptions, if one member state threatens another, or if one government ceases to represent it's people through committing war crimes against them for example, then the UN may act, but for the most part, nations sign up to what does suit them, and don't sign up to what doesn't (i.e. some countries don't think the WTO would benefit them).
The point is though, for every fringe-organisation of the UN filled up by the nutjob countries, there are plenty of UN organisations that facilitate global cooperation, for example, the International Civil Aviation Organization helps facilitate global standards on air traffic control so that when a plane enters another country's air space they can navigate safely to land, or avoid other air traffic, without fear of conflicting standards on such things causing issues. The Universal Postal Union helps ensure you can send a letter from your house in the middle of whatever country your in, to just about any other address in the world and so forth.
So yes, don't worry, your sovereign nation's rights and laws will remain intact, providing it doesn't try and force them on anyone else, which is precisely why Saudi Arabia's bid is just noise that is doomed to fail. The UN still has a point, just as your government still has a point, even if it probably does a lot of things you dislike as most governments do. Just as at least some form of government is necessary for a civilised society to exist by enforcing laws against being able to arbitrarily murder people and so forth, the UN is necessary to ensure that certain international efforts and cooperation flow smoothly by mitigating the potential for cultural barriers and so forth to cause issues (i.e. imagine if an air traffic controller at a busy airport like Heathrow, or Chicago O'Hare had to know every language in the world to cater to pilots flying in from all over the world).
That's kinda the point of conquering territories isn't it?
Now, it's worth clarifying... I don't like it. I don't think it's right. But us US Americans are far from the only people in even the last 50 years to impose our beliefs on others. Anyone remember a place called Indochina?
Personally, I'd be a huge fan of stopping the "world's police" line, and adopting a more altruistic approach to the world and its affairs... But let's keep this in perspective... There's always someone who's claiming to "help" people by "telling them how to live."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/30/husain-haqqani-muslim-rage-is-about-politics-not-religion.html
Can't be racist since the author is a Muslim.
The basic message is simple: The Islamic powers that be see the decline of the Islamic world and instead of catching up by modernizing their world, they seek to keep what control they can by creating theocracies, where the rule is to not question those in charge. It keeps the population dumb and controllable but also backward and unable to matter in the real world.
A perfect example was shown with Olympics. Saudia Arabia had fielded a female Judoka but insisted she would be allowed to wear a headscarf. Probably the first thing you picture when thinking of Judo is the standard uniform, which has no head covering. It never had, wasn't needed to appease any country ever before. But Saudia Arabia needed to be appeased because else they might withdraw. So the woman was allowed to disregard safety, disregard tradition and wear a piece of kit nobody else was allowed to wear...
AND LOST
Immidiatly, she didn't stand a chance! Not even the slightest. She was the worsed to ever take part in the modern olympics.
She wasn't put into her countries team to win or even to compete, she was put in to be harmless enough to not upset Saudi Arabians while at the same time playing the "the world hates islam" card by hoping she would be barred because of the headscarf. She wasn't and it became clear thar SA biggotted nature simply meant they had no women worthy of competition.
It is easier to shout loudly "rah rah us" and blame everything on them, then to risk modernizing your country and have the people wonder why this old men are in charge. England works that way, "trust us the 1% conservatives, we will fix your country because you are great, trust us". The USA loves its rousing "We are #1" waving made in China banners.
And around the world, were the powers that be have made a mess of things, religion is a good card to rally your troops around the leaders in support rather then looking for a handy rope.
Why do you think backwater North-ireland had religious strife? Because it was managed so well economically? Why do you think the orthodox church is back in power in Russia, because the last time they were in charge, they did so well economically?
No, but in economic hard times when people can't improve themselves or society, they become susceptible to religious control telling them they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Because keeping the people stupid is a good way to control people, but when times are hard, people also prefer to be kept stupid. Easy answers are so much easier.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It has been well known that this stuff is dial-a-riot type protests, the numbers are relatively tiny and to many cases of so called "spontanous" protests about stuff that either was released decades earlier or so obscure it could never have been heard of by the protestors unless someone went to the trouble of telling them.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You forget that most judaism-sourced religions have conversion as a core belief. Christianity's conversion drive has butchered tens if not hundreds of millions at this point, not a small feat considering much less effective weaponry hundreds of years ago when that mess really got going.
Big religions are a tool for control of the masses. So is conquest. Is it really so surprising that they go hand in hand even today?
For all of you in the Middle East, I want to be very clear.
In the United States, the absolute highest law in the land is the US Constitution, and of that Constitution the highest law is the 1st Amendment. That is as important to Americans as the Koran is to muslims.
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution is what gives American's the freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and several other freedoms. Every single law made, MUST not conflict with the US Constitution, if it does, then only the constitution is valid, and the law passed is invalid, even International law. It would be like a religious ruling that Muhammed was not really a prophet, when the Koran clearly indicates otherwise. Which would you follow that Fatwa or the Koran?
In the US, no politician can make or sign or negotiate any treaty, or any agreement, because they are obligated by oath under the letter and spirit of the law, to support and defend the US constitution. Any such agreements or treaties they enter into is not valid in the United States, and those politicians would be committing an act of insurrection and Treason against the American people; As a result those politicians should, could, and would be removed from their office by military force and thrown in prison for the rest of their lives, if they are lucky.
No treaty will ban any kind of speech in the United States, in any way shape or form.
Kiddie porn? Boohoo.
AC didn't say kiddie porn, AC said under-18 porn. Presumably they mean something like 17 years old rather than 7 years old.
Not that I agree that it is a bad thing. A line should be drawn somewhere, and age 18 seems as good a place as any. Just pointing out that under-18 porn does not necessarily constitute kiddie porn.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
As an Ex-muslim I say mod parent up.
Anonymous because I don't want to be beheaded.
Grow up. No war has ever been fought on the reasons of morality. There are only three reasons for a war: power, resources and land. Which, of course, are pretty much the same as long as you keep your shit together somewhat.
Morality in a war is never more than a popular justification. The US Civil War? Not about the slaves, but it did use the promised freedom of slaves as a way to use them behind enemy lines. The invasion of Iraq? Not about freedom or democracy, but about keeping the dollar as the currency of oil trade. I dare you to find one that was really about morality.
FCKGW 09F9 42
Yes, and the common ground here isn't religion. Religion is a symptom of the real problem.
It desn't matter whether you are a Taliban shooting a little girl, or a member of the Red Army killing doctors and teachers--you know, those dangerous edjoomacated people--or a brainwashed 19th-early 20th century expansionist nationalist.
Humans tend to.. not question their beliefs. We become emotionally attached to them. We place way too much value on them. Our beliefs are tribal--We tend to believe what we believe to fit in with our peer groups (when's the last time you were at an outing and someone spewed crap and the rest of the group went along?). We discourage critical thinking, and encourage anti-intellectualism, and encourage far, far too much Authenticity (thinking from the gut) at the expense of reason. It's easy for us to kill. All it takes is a sociopath or narcissist in a position of power to motivate us to do it. Sometimes, not even that much. Our beliefs trump the lives of others. Our beliefs trump the rights of others to live their lives in peace. The problem is humans are arrogant. Religion has nothing to do with it.
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
Are soldiers to blame for acting out the orders of the leaders? The idea in the west with REAL soldiers is that any western soldier has the duty to question his superiors if they order him to do something that is against higher laws. This is at least what I was told when I was drafted, it is in the dutch soldier manual.
So... what about mobs? Is the mob incited by a leader responsible for their actions?
What about a payed mob? Many arab protest are of the dial-a-riot variaty, there is nothing spontaneous about them. They are organized by leaders who decide NOW is the moment to take offense and find something to take offense at. Protests have been held over decades old material OR material so obscure it is unlike to have been found by accident by the protesters.
But lets go further. Where does reponsibility end when it comes time for collective punishment.
It is very PC to cry over the poor victims of Dresden and Hiroschima. Countless innocent children died who weren't even old enough to know the world outside their garden let alone know the politics of the world. But how many of the women who burned and died had cheered their troops? Had hugged their mass murdering sons?
Part of the crew of the Titanic accepted a reward/bribe for rescuing passengers, this was an outrageous thing to do and over of the mothers of the crew slew the door shut in her sons face when he came home and refused to ever speak with him. How many mothers of SS soldiers, Japanse child raping infantry and Islam terrorists have done the same? The father of the muslim who killed 3 French soldiers and 2 jewish kids, didn't even apologize but instead sued the french state for killing his son.
I am not reponsible for the actions of others, in my eyes, goes only so far. If you go to the same church as someone who does something you disagree with, you have to take action, either leave that church or bar that person but you can't just shrug your shoulders and claim the others actions shouldn't reflect on you.
Many talk about the hate of Muslims in the west but so far, Muslims deaths at the hands of white westerners is a fraction of westerners killed by muslims.
Terrorism is not isolated to Muslims but in other parts of the world, what has happened is that the people part of the terrorist group started to protest, held marches to condemn the violence to show they were not supporting it. Often at great danger to themselves.
There have only tiny handful of muslims who publicly showed on their own accord in front of their own people, that the terrorists were not acting in their name.
Plenty hold that every US citizen deserved the 9/11 attack becsuse of US actions. None of these people believe that ALL Muslims deserve the Iraq/Afghan war for Muslims terrorist actions.
Ultimately these people are racists. White people are responsible for the action of their society. Muslims are not responsible for the actions of their society.
I don't think that attitude is right.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What about non-militant Islam, is that evil? These aren't the "death to America" types, but the much more common "I want to go to work, come home to my family, and help raise the best and brightest kids I can, and maybe I stop by Friday prayers at the mosque" types.
For reference, here are the 5 fundamental practices of Islam:
1. Regular personal declaration in belief in monotheism, and that Mohammed is the messenger of that 1 god. This conceptually would be like a Christian reciting the Nicene Creed.
2. Praying 5 times a day. Totally harmless for anyone who's not doing this.
3. Giving at least 2.5% of ones income as charity towards the less fortunate. This seems positively virtuous.
4. Fasting, particularly during Ramadan, if practical (exceptions are made for children, pregnant women, etc). Again, harmless to anyone who isn't fasting.
5. A pilgrimage to Mecca. This could potentially support the Saudi government, but it's also basically harmless to anyone who isn't doing it, and often quite moving to those who do (Malcolm X is a great example - his experiences led him to stop hating white people due to their race).
And I should point out, for the record, that I'm not Muslim myself, but I've noticed that those who think that Islam is completely evil often know very little about what Muslims actually believe and how they practice their faith.
I am officially gone from
No, he is not over-exaggerating. It is an ongoing process, and we see the results every day. Killing because of a silly drawing, a stupid picture, you name it. Rules and exceptions put in place just for Muslims. It makes me sick to the stomach to see what we let these people get away with.
I'm in The Netherlands where there's a natural level of tolerance. But tolerance is not unidirectional and it is not unlimited. Muslims are stretching the boundaries and people are not going to take it much longer. The economic crisis takes a front seat today, but intolerance based on Islam beliefs is a strong second.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Several points
1. He's not over-exaggerating. With the exception of the United States, many Western countries already have something similar. Canada for example already has human rights tribunals which seek to censure offensive material. Muslim groups are powerful and blasphemy is still a big deal in Muslim communities.
2. Why is he complaining? Because he prefers the American way to the Saudi Arabia way. What kind of world would you rather live in? That ruled by the Saudis or the Americans? Is this concept so difficult for you to understand?
No shit... the bigger power makes the laws. Wooo... what a revelation. That has been the case for thousands upon thousands of years. And other powers come in and try to push their ideas.
Does that mean, the average person/country shouldn't try and join sides with the power they most prefer or that they consider more moral or more just or best way of life?
Logical and Scientific arguments have no meaning in morality or ways of life. That is all value judgment.
Go ahead... give me a logical and scientific argument why the Nazi way of life should be opposed?
You can't do it without appealing to morality. Life is sacred... that's morality. Freedom is good... that's morality. We should treat people equally... that's morality. We should treat people well... that's morality. We should have peace... that's morality.
Like it or not, everything starts from morality and values. You can't reach a decision without morality and values. Science and logic only come in to play once you have morality and values.
So yeah... people take sides and push their vision of the world. Welcome to life and history. The only thing that matters and the only thing that ever matters is which side wins and what they want to do with the world.
So take 5 years and live in Saudi Arabia as a regular person.
Now, take 5 years and live in the United States as a regular person.
Then come back and let me know which society you'd rather have lead the world.
Christianity's conversion drive has butchered tens if not hundreds of millions at this point, not a small feat considering much less effective weaponry hundreds of years ago when that mess really got going.
The difference being that that was a long time ago, and Christianity today acknowledges that that was wrong and does not engage in those practices. While some of the more extreme Muslims still openly practice those techniques and have not recanted them.
Unfortunately, we live in a society that thinks that you should be held to account for the sins of people who died before your grandfather was born, perpetrated on someone else whose living relatives are also half a dozen generations removed from the sin. And yet, we also live in a society where you are not responsible for your own current sins because everything is somebody else's fault. Amazing.,
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
As an Ex-muslim I say mod parent up because I want to be beheaded.
So your proof is "because it has to be"? The Spanish inquisition was about 150,000 people, at most (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls). The Salem witch trials were 19 (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/asal_de.htm). By all means, give me the rest of the numbers that add up to 99.849981 million. Now, do we get to count atheistic communism in this comparison? Because Stalin (20 million), Hitler (50 Million) and Mao (70 million) (http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm) killed or were responsible for the deaths of quite a large number of people... and in about 2.5% of the time of Christianity.
There were any number of horrific experiments performed on Jews in the name of science during World War II; the USSR, with state enforced atheism, murdered millions of its own people and shipped uncounted more off to die in Siberia. Does that imply that science and atheists are evil? No, that would be a silly argument. Violent people will use anything they have at their disposal to justify themselves, but we need to remember that it's the people who are doing the evil, not the concepts they purport to support.
Good point, but I've also noticed that many who are comfortable bashing religion and certain devotees, or are silent when others bash them (often times the target is Christianity or Christians), become agitated and assume a protective role when the same is done to Islam. Not a Christian (or even religious) myself
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
But the response hurts more non-militant Muslims then it does extremists. And those hurt or those whose families are killed are much more likely to become extremists - from helpless rage if nothing else.
Just look at how much hate 9/11 created in the US. Now imagine if your countrymen were killed nearly every day, just for living their lives in the 'wrong' country. Would you support the guys doing the killing, or would you join anyone that was trying to push them out. And if your new organization had a few crazies in charge, would you really care? Or would you accept them as the 'lesser' evil?
So tell me again... who are the ones promoting hatred and violence?
That's easy - anyone who believes that people who believe differently than they do are fundamentally and typically irredeemably evil. Which is where Islamic nutjobs (e.g. Al Qaida) and Christian nutjobs (e.g. Xe, formerly Blackwater) and atheist nutjobs (e.g. the Soviets) all are much more similar than they'd like to admit.
I am officially gone from
No, I wouldn't:
1. Most Muslims are not members of Hamas.
2. The leaders of Hamas aren't widely considered to be religious authorities, only political authorities in a certain area of the world (this would be the equivalent of treating, say, John F Kennedy, as a leading authority on Catholicism).
3. The leaders of Hamas have a clear motive that has nothing to do with religion for convincing people that jihad, as envisioned by Hamas, is the ultimate in religious devotion.
I am officially gone from
Except there's Israel. We'll never be free of their over-large influence (and I'd say co-opting) of US politics. Sorry about the Holocast, and you're better than your neighbors, but that doesn't justify your willful and active meddling in US policies foreign and domestic.
If there was no religion of any sort, present day would be like living in Star Trek.
as being ruled by those christian nutjobs that currently stick their noses into everything, but without the hypocrisy.
For reference, here are the 5 fundamental practices of Islam:
For reference, here is the 6th fundamental practice of Islam: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82120
Praise be to Allaah.
It is part of Allaah’s complete blessing upon us and the perfection of this great religion, that Islam organizes all aspects of our lives. There is nothing good but it has shown it to us, and there is nothing bad but it has warned us against it.
And Muslim (2020) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one among you should eat with his left hand or drink with it, for the shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with it.”
Allaah has warned us against disobeying the commands of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad’s) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah __ legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”
. . . or like, a Fitnah of getting your Embassy stormed by Muslims . . .
So all this talk about if it was the film or Al Qaeda who caused the riot is probably irrelevant: The Muslim folks killed Chris Stevens, because he was left-handed.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
People always quote these three assholes and attribute them to atheism. And nothing could be further from the truth and everyone who modded parent up should go crawl in a corner.
First, Hitler was a christian. Some other Nazis toyed with pagan ideas and more nonsense, but none of them had an explicitly atheist agenda.
Second, Stalin exploited religion, even though he was an atheist himself. And while atheism was a part of communist dogma, there was very little explicitly anti-religious prosecution in communist russia. On the contrary, even Stalin himself maintained close ties with the orthodox church, and while its power was greatly reduced, it was never abolished.
If anyone of these can be accused of anti-religious actions, it is Mao, who indeed had religious sites ransacked during the cultural revolution. But again, to the best of my knowledge, there were no explicit anti-religious death camps or anything like that.
You, sir, are a fraud and a liar, a demagoge and manipulator. First, you attribute the total death count of world events to one person, and then to one feature (in one case, a falsely alleged feature) of their personality. That's like saying that Bill Gates is as rich as he is because he has a nose. Nevermind that lots of other people with noses aren't that rich, nor is it a general feature of people with noses to be rich - uh, sorry, lots of atheists never killed anyone, nor is it a general feature of atheism to kill people.
Your argument is entirely fraudulent in every step. You fail to establish causation, you don't even try. Your entire argument boils down to "look, here is three evil people, here is something they had in common, therefore that thing is really, really evil". Oh yes, and all that is graciously ignoring that you are dead wrong on one of them.
I despise cheap rhetorics like this. I hate it when it is false-to-facts.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that point of view, but if the sane Muslims want to be seen as the majority, they need to be seen to be cracking down on their extremists rather than shielding them. When at attack like 9/11 happens and the first thing out of the mouths of every major Muslim spokesperson is "Don't you dare even think about profiling Arabs/Mulims!" then people are going to look at all of them a lot more suspiciously. Why isn't the first and only thing out of their mouths after a major attack "God damn those murderous maniacs for attacking my country!"
I'm sure somebody will point out a few quotes from spokespeople saying just that. The trouble is, they never seem to be the majority or to have the loudest voices. Better fix that, or that global war between Islam and nonbelievers that the extremists are hoping for might just happen someday, and I don't think the results will be what they expect.
I don't reply to ACs
If you are a Linux user you can still boot headless.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."