Slashdot Mirror


Saudi Arabia Revives 15-Year-Old Ban On 'Zionism-Promoting' Pokemon (timesofisrael.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Clerics in Saudi Arabia have renewed a 15-year-old ban on Pokemon, following the release of the highly popular augmented reality version of the game, Pokemon Go. According to Reuters, the General Secretariat of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars reaffirmed a 2001 ban on the game. The Times of Israel reports: "While fatwa no. 21,758 makes no mention of the latest iteration of [the] game, it does list many sinful aspects of Pokemon. Firstly, the game is seen as a form of gambling, which itself is forbidden. Secondly, it encourages belief in Darwin's theory of evolution, and thirdly, the fatwa says, the symbols used in the game promote the Shinto religion of Japan, Christianity, Freemasonry and 'global Zionism.'" The ruling says: "The symbols and logos of devious religions and organizations are used [including] the six-pointed star: You rarely find a card that does not contain such a star. It is associated with Judaism, the logo and sign of the State of Israel, and the first symbol of the Masonry organizations in the world." Pokemon Go has been such a success that it has already doubled Nintendo's stock price after launching just two weeks ago.

328 comments

  1. Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Keep inviting Shariah advocates in and we'll get legislation like this soon enough

    1. Re: Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      OK, but you have to admit that this one is good legislation.

      *ducks out*

    2. Re:Build a wall by Deadstick · · Score: 1
    3. Re: Build a wall by cunina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's the old Vatican. I wouldn't be surprised if the current Pope has a replica wand and Time-Turner.

    4. Re:Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Which Christian country enact this papal declaration? Right none. Troll harder, muslim apologist.

    5. Re:Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who think religion should rule law and that women and minorities shouldn't have rights? Who will be left to vote Republican?

    6. Re:Build a wall by stealth_finger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Which Christian country enact this papal declaration? Right none. Troll harder, muslim apologist.

      Vatican City?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    7. Re:Build a wall by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Rich people.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me one story of tourists who happen to have a copy of Harry Potter getting it confiscated while visiting the Vatican.

    9. Re: Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just love muslims... to death.

    10. Re:Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation needed]

      No kid visiting Vatican city had his pokemon confiscated nor was burned at the stake.

      Troll harder, Muslim apologist

    11. Re:Build a wall by dywolf · · Score: 0

      what Alex Jones level of delusion BS-monger website did you get that pile of ignorance from?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re:Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      meanwhile the republican's are doing their best to ban the teaching of evolution themselves, as well as global warming

    13. Re: Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether they enacted the policy or not is irrelevant. Try harder, god apologist. I think you both need to STFU.

    14. Re: Build a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If their evolution teaching comes from Pokemon, that would be a problem in itself.

  2. Pokémon, not "Pokemon" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Senior"!

    1. Re:Pokémon, not "Pokemon" by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      So is this the new version of "cracker, not hacker"?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Pokémon, not "Pokemon" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      meh, maybe someone will care when they start adding accent marks to english keyboards.

      It is a word from a language that doesn't even use the latin characterset. it can be spelled any way we want it to be and would still be correct.

    3. Re: Pokémon, not "Pokemon" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japanese in no way ever uses an accent mark even when translating. The entire word, concept, and meaning are comply made up. It's a game. Take a deep breath. Did you bring your inhaler?

  3. Are all the rare Pokemon hiding in Meca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are they trying to keep us from the Rare Desert Pokemon?

    1. Re:Are all the rare Pokemon hiding in Meca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it guard the Kaaba stone, drawing mystical energy from it's gateway to another, more Pokémony time? The legend is ready to be discovered by a young pilgrim called Ash. See, we can make Pokémon more Islamic!

  4. You must also be in compliance . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with all 21,757 other fatwas or you will be stoned to death in accordance with the prophet's will. That is all.

    1. Re:You must also be in compliance . . by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      When did that will make it thru probate? The court date wasn't supposed to be until 2525 if mankind is still alive.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    2. Re: You must also be in compliance . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muhammad hates pokemon? MFG. I didnt know he gamed! Didnt he die like centuries ago? Must be a zombie. Does he WoW too?

    3. Re: You must also be in compliance . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh don't even act like other countries don't also have 20,000+ laws on the books. Why do you think we all commit three felonies a day?

  5. They sound completely insane by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read this and I'm just shaking my head at how incredibly ludicrous every word in that statement was.

    If it weren't for the fact that millions of people live under the oppression of this sort of thinking, it would actually be funny.

    When will these people finally join the 21st century and stop basing their entire lives around this bullshit?

    1. Re:They sound completely insane by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      When will these people finally join the 21st century and stop basing their entire lives around this bullshit?

      Their whole society and all their peers will ostracize them when they live in such a religious society. You're right, though. It's what's needed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They can't join the 21st century because their entire culture is rooted in bronze age bullshit.

      They should have been cut off from modern society completely and eventually forgotten.

      But of course, when we are beholden to petroleum companies, the sick and degenerate middle east gets a seat at the table.

    3. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will these people finally join the 21st century and stop basing their entire lives around this bullshit?

      Their whole society and all their peers will ostracize them when they live in such a religious society. You're right, though. It's what's needed.

      Islamic culture revolves around its creation, 2000 years after the bronze age ended.

    4. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rooted in" means "based on ideas from...". Just because something came after a period of time, doesn't mean that something can't be based on, or contain ideas from, that time period.

      I'm guessing you have confused ignorance and underestimation as a slightly higher level of self preservation. For example, when you see the guy wearing the bomb running towards you, just back up until he blows. It's safer and easier that way.

    5. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it weren't for the fact that millions of people live under the oppression of this sort of thinking, it would actually be funny.

      There are billions of muslims in the world.

    6. Re:They sound completely insane by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      Only good news is that this reaction is clearly borne out of fear: they're worried of losing their grasp, that the rest of the world will seep in and reveal how completely retarded their religious laws actually are. A religion assured of its dominance over the population wouldn't need to suppress that sort of thing, for they would trust their followers to remain loyal to the creed.

    7. Re:They sound completely insane by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Yes, indeed. They've recognized our Weapons of Mass Cultural Destruction for what they are, the way Western Civilization will bring them down once and for all.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    8. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It'll change or become less relevant when they no longer can pull $$$ form the ground.

    9. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      They are existing in the 21st century. They are a product of our existing world political order. Saying it's the 21st century has as much logical weight as saying that it's Thursday. Please come up with an argument that engages the [actual] issues with the competing worldview rather than exclaiming that we've assigned a certain number to the present year.

    10. Re:They sound completely insane by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      capitalism, as practiced by the US, is going to cause the end of the US.

      and you know, I wish our kind of capitalism on ALL OF THEM over there in the islamic countries.

      what... should we be the only ones suffering in this world?

      (lol)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:They sound completely insane by Copid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's something I've often wondered: If you have a custom of throwing people who don't believe in the volcano god into a volcano, how long will it take after everybody stops believing in the volcano god for somebody to ask, "So do we all really still believe this stuff?"

      I'm thinking it might be a pretty long time.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    12. Re: They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Yep. All kinds of diverse people amongst those billions. I hope we can convince the vast majority that modern society is fun and shouldn't be banned. Or we could just keep killing them, that works according to our leaders.

    13. Re:They sound completely insane by nikkipolya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Very true. It is the fear of the consequences of non-conformity that makes people conform. And seeing bright people conforming, turns the dumb into fanatics. Its a vicious loop.
      I would have modded you up, but I do not have mod points.

    14. Re:They sound completely insane by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is an attitude in many Christian circles as well. We're talking 21st century Christians in Murica, the same people that condemned D&D and Harry Potter. Plenty of them in Europe as well though not so prominent.

      http://www.charismanews.com/op...

    15. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same can be said about Christianity.

    16. Re:They sound completely insane by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      When the rest of the world stops enabling them and defending this shit for fear of "islamophobia"?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    17. Re:They sound completely insane by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll find some folks in just about every religion that are wound waaay too tight and see the devil in everything. The rest enjoy their games and movies like everyone else.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    18. Re:They sound completely insane by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      When will these people finally join the 21st century and stop basing their entire lives around this bullshit?

      Probably not until around the 26th century, but the rest of us will be in the 26th century then and the same question will stand.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    19. Re:They sound completely insane by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Saying it's the 21st century has as much logical weight as saying that it's Thursday.

      That might be relevant if you're running around as if it's Saturday.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    20. Re:They sound completely insane by Boronx · · Score: 1

      If Pat Robertson could run the U.S., and he's tried, he'd ban teletubbies. Islamophobia is a polite description of someone who's racist against swarthy people who write funny.

    21. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We take their oil, burn their lands. They can't do anything to stop us. Islamic fighters are cowardly scum. We pile their bodies high and listen as the lamentations of their bum buddies rise into the air.

      We send them to see their moon god. Thank us later.

    22. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religions of the world are lead by old men, many of whom uphold the ideas of 13-19th century, and whose supporters are backing slowly and letting them preach just for the principle of "respect thy elders." Meanwhile, the rest of the world is operating generations ahead in most respects. How does one disassemble such organizations and institutions without "not respecting thy elders anymore"? It's tear-emitting sad.

    23. Re:They sound completely insane by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Galileo's ideas took 200 years or so to catch on. Assuming the same for Darwin, we should be seeing some movement in the next 30-40 years.

    24. Re:They sound completely insane by abies · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really - Christianity is evolving. It basically loses edge as time is passing, becoming 'lukewarm' religion. Look at Church of England as extreme case of that, but same route can be seen in most subsects. On the other hand, Islam is frozen in time, actively fighting any kinds of changes (given what happened over very trivial differences between Shia and Sunni, you should not expect any bigger changes for next few thousand years).

    25. Re:They sound completely insane by H725_IT · · Score: 1

      amen!

    26. Re:They sound completely insane by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      It's the $CURRENT_YEAR ! :)

    27. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This highlights the difference between believing and paying lip service. No matter how silly you might think he volcano god theory was, you would want to be pretty darn sure you were in the majority before you start asking questions.

      It's like forced conversion: it's not about making the other person actually believe your absurd shit, it's about making them tell everyone they do, act like they do, and most importantly say "how high" when you say jump.

    28. Re: They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. All kinds of diverse people amongst those billions. I hope we can convince the vast majority that modern society is fun and shouldn't be banned. Or we could just keep killing them, that works according to our leaders.

      I don't know about that. Radical Muslims have killed more Muslims than nonbelievers.

    29. Re:They sound completely insane by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Say it with me: Islam is not a race.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    30. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, bakononism. except the hangings were fake.

    31. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that they are clever enough to understand it will run out one day and thus they started investing in and buying lots of assets and other companies abroad.

      The end of oil will hurt them but not as much as you think. They will keep a lot of their power.

    32. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if America stopped propping up all these fundamentalist idiots maybe the people who live there might be able to take a look at the outside world, see how much better it is, and throw these bums into a loony bin (which is where they belong)

      People who base their lives around a bunch of middle eastern desert fairy tales need psychiatric help (Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. etc. I'm talking to you !).

      Monotheism has been the greatest curse on humanity ever.

    33. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem arises when those too tight have enough power to prevent the other from doing what they want.

    34. Re:They sound completely insane by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I've often heard the following related, occasionally to point out the absurdity of corporate policy. There are several versions, but here's one I found from a quick Google search:

      It happened that there were three monkeys in a cage. Suspended at the top if the cage was a bunch of bananas. There was a ladder from the floor of the cage up to the bananas. One of the monkeys, who was both clever and agile and also liked bananas, decided to head up the ladder to grab a banana.

      Imagine his surprise (not to mention that of the other two monkeys) when suddenly a fire hose washed down the cage, blasting all three monkeys over to one side. Cold and shivering, the three monkeys regrouped and thought about what had happened.

      Monkeys don’t have a real long memory and, after awhile, a second monkey thought again about the bananas and headed up the ladder. Same thing—a fire hose washed all three monkeys over to the side of the cage. They picked themselves up, shook themselves off and hoped the sun would come out to warm them up.

      After another couple of hours, the third monkey couldn’t resist and he went for it. Sure enough, same result—fire hose and cold, wet, miserable monkeys.

      Finally, all three monkeys became convinced that going for the bananas was a bad idea, and went on with the rest of their lives.

      Then the zookeeper drafted one of the monkeys for another exhibit and replaced him with a new monkey. The new monkey arrived, looked up at the bananas, looked over at the ladder and couldn’t figure out why the other monkeys hadn’t gone for the bananas. He headed for the ladder and got about 1 rung up when the remaining "experienced" monkeys tackled him, dragged him to the floor and pummeled him into submission. He quickly concluded that climbing the ladder wasn’t a good idea.

      A week later, the zookeeper replaced the second monkey. Monkeys are somewhat single-minded. The new monkey spied the bananas, headed for the ladder, and the remaining two monkeys tackled him and pummeled him into submission.

      Finally the third monkey was replaced and, you guessed it, the same thing happened. So life went on among the monkeys and after some time the first of the "new" monkeys was replaced with yet another monkey. Sure enough, the new guy saw the bananas, went for the ladder and his two peers then tackled him and beat him into submission.

      Why was that? None of these monkeys knew anything about the fire hose. None of them had ever gotten wet for having climbed the ladder in the quest for bananas. Yet the monkeys had been fully culturalized to know that it was a bad idea. And you could likely go on individually replacing monkeys one at a time forever and expect the same result.

      The Parable of the Monkeys can be readily applied to just about every organizational community structure in the human sphere. We can laugh at the silly monkeys, but humans are the only creatures on Earth capable of amassing and arming themselves to fight and die by the tens and hundreds of thousands because another human claims yet another human is building firehoses to keep all the bananas for himself.

    35. Re:They sound completely insane by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Of course, not every Muslim pays as much attention to this sort of thing as one might think. I remember a guy I knew 20 years or so ago. Egyptian. Muslim. One night I asked him if it would bother him if I did something (a beer with dinner, I think -it's been a while).

      His response: "I am a Muslim. My religion requires me to not do certain things. I don't do them. It also requires me to do certain things. I don't do them either. And my religion doesn't bind you in any way."

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    36. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank... me, I was going to have to say this same thing, but it seems I already did.

    37. Re:They sound completely insane by Empiric · · Score: 3, Informative

      I assume you mean Copernicus' ideas, and that you're excluding Galileo's ideas of God's existence, which he never repudiated.

      And that you're excluding that the same Catholicism has accepted evolution for a long time now.

      But other than that.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    38. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Say it with me: Islam is not a race."

      The issue is that religion has protected status in most nations, including the US.

      I don't think religion should necessarily be protected any more than other ideas.

      Otherwise, we end up in the strange situation of trying to defend ideas that lead to violence while at the same time, condemning the violence.

      What should be most protected against are race and other genetic features that we cannot control. If we are adding religion, we are adding to the misconception that religion is different from other thoughts in our head and somehow needs less scrutiny.

      If you openly believe in the volcano god, that's fine, but I should be able to openly call BS, without fear of being described as having volcanophobia.

    39. Re:They sound completely insane by Empiric · · Score: 2

      Your scope of "as time is passing" seems rather inappropriately restricted.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    40. Re:They sound completely insane by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      False equivalencies. What percentage of global Christianity believes that Pokemon is evil versus what percentage of global Islam is under Sharia law and/or believes that Pokemon is evil AND that women are second class citizens?

      By the way... you know that when you use words like "Murica" you automatically lose any argument with an adult, right?

    41. Re:They sound completely insane by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      >>Pat Robertson

      1991 just called. It wants its Boogeyman back

    42. Re:They sound completely insane by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      And Atheism, which is at least as old.

    43. Re:They sound completely insane by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not so much that Christianity is losing its "edge" so much as that it's lost its political influence. Go take a look, there are lots of nutjobs in Christian churches that will talk about how Pokemon is demonic/evil/etc (or Harry Potter, or what have you). The main difference is that these people don't have a direct pipeline to getting laws passed as a result. They used to, back in the old days, but over time they've increasingly lost that power - first the formal link based on direct power, and then later the informal links based on influence.

      But don't think for a minute that they don't want that power back.

    44. Re:They sound completely insane by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

      Not really - Christianity is evolving. It basically loses edge as time is passing, becoming 'lukewarm' religion. Look at Church of England as extreme case of that, but same route can be seen in most subsects. On the other hand, Islam is frozen in time, actively fighting any kinds of changes (given what happened over very trivial differences between Shia and Sunni, you should not expect any bigger changes for next few thousand years).

      First of all, let's not kid ourselves into thinking there are no sharp-edged (a.k.a. dim-witted) Christians out there.

      But I kinda take your point. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that most (all?) Muslims read their sacred text in the original language, whereas the overwhelming majority of Christians don't.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    45. Re: They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism is older than theism. Everyone is born without beliefs.

    46. Re:They sound completely insane by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Really? How about the Catholic church embracing science, or Martin Luther's influence. There are nutjob sects in any religion and Christianity isn't exempt.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    47. Re: They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we would all be better off if there was an article in the bill of rights saying that every human being has the right to an education that is not in conflict with evidence.
      I'm all for liberty of expression, but a child should no be subjected to bullshit.

    48. Re:They sound completely insane by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I read this and I'm just shaking my head at how incredibly ludicrous every word in that statement was.

      The "..sinful aspects of Pokemon"

      Yeah no kidding buddy.

      Would someone care to explain to me, in rational, logical terms, how, in 2016, religion does anything whatsoever positive, in the long term, for the Human race in general? I don't think anyone can. All I see is ancient works of fiction (Bible, Quran, etc), regardless of how beautifully written they may have been, being leveraged by power-seeking people to exploit the masses and convince them to live ass-backwards lives, and also using these books as an excuse to commit crimes against humanity. It's literally holding back Human evolution, and the evolution of civilization. Please, Human race, can we get over this nonsense sooner rather than later, before we kill ourselves off over it?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    49. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Say it with me. To the assholes who want to "ban all muslims" and kick foreigners off of planes for talking funny, it's a race. A blonde haired blue eyed muslim speaking Swedish isn't going to get thrown off a plane, but an Italian mathematician will.

    50. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islamaphilia is a mental disorder which, evidently, you are afflicted with.

      And no, Islam is not a race, it's an outdated 6th century political ideology, with a hint of religion, practiced by people of all races all over the globe.

    51. Re: They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Galileo had repudiated God's existence, he would likely have been executed. Due to this coercion, we will never know what he really believed.

    52. Re: They sound completely insane by Empiric · · Score: 1

      "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

      --Galileo

      Rather sums it up. You may choose that he actively asserted God's existence rather than simply keeping quiet about his lack of belief, but I'll apply reason instead.

      And, I think it unlikely he would. Even for the time "heresy" (perceived corruption of Christian belief), would be more problematic than atheism (outright denial of Christian belief).

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    53. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catholicism has NOT accepted evolution. What rock do you live under?

    54. Re: They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they do a lot of charity work. That is not done by other folks to the same extent. Other than that I have nothing.

    55. Re:They sound completely insane by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      The same can be said about Christianity.

      That's easy to show as false. Compare "Christian" countries to Muslim ones.

    56. Re:They sound completely insane by Empiric · · Score: 2

      "The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,â Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. "The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve."

      more

      You may be thinking of an atheistic assertion of evolution. That part is a non-sequitur leap from biological evolution, a leap which is both untestable and unscientific. I am not suggesting the illogical "evolution, therefore atheism".

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    57. Re: They sound completely insane by kheldan · · Score: 2

      Well, they do a lot of charity work.

      When we live in a world where little girls are attacked, have acid thrown in their faces, or killed outright, just because they wanted to go to school to learn about things beyond being wives and baby-making machines, and where there are violent assholes running around, blowing up historical landmarks, archaeological sites, killing people just because they don't believe in some Invisible Sky God the same exact way they do, and cutting off people's heads on gods-be-damned YouTube, and some are denying their kids much-needed vaccinations or not taking them to the doctor when they're very, very sick because their 'god' says they shouldn't believe in such things, then so far as I'm concerned all the 'charity work' you could ever do does not balance the scales against all that.

      I desperately want the human brain to finally evolve past the need for all this superstitious, mystical, irrational gods/religion/spirituality bullshit, and embrace rational thinking, reason, real knowledge, and a hunt for real truth.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    58. Re:They sound completely insane by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence the percentage is different, or is this just another "all muslims are part of an evil conspiracy" feeling? Sharia is not what the conspiracy theorists say it is but that was from a previous slashdot topic.

    59. Re:They sound completely insane by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Right. There is a problem with Wahabis, same as there's a problem with some Christian groups. That doesn't mean you can use those groups to blame the entire religions. The Wahabis are kooks, but powerful enough that the Saudi leadership doesn't want to offend them. Similarly some evangelical groups are kooks, but powerful enough that politicians in the US don't want to offend them.

    60. Re:They sound completely insane by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      sadly, one political party in the US is dominated by religious fundamentalists.

    61. Re:They sound completely insane by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I doubt most Muslims read their sacred text any more than your average Christian reads the bible -- a few chapters that were assigned to them and then they put it down because they're busy. That's why pretty much all major religions have some equivalent of priests who dedicate their lives to learning the religion and are able to pass their knowledge on to the masses -- those masses don't and have never had the time to do so themselves, even during periods when they might have had the desire.

      As for the priests and their counterparts who DO read the texts.. its hard to say how much being in the original language matters. Certainly something is always lost in translation, but plenty has been historically lost in simple transcription (copying) as well back before the printing press. Its why things like the dead sea scrolls are so important -- they provide earlier (and thus generally less tainted) copies of the original texts.

      Of course the question then becomes how accurate any particular copy is, no matter its age -- it could be that you found the copy that was written by some nutjob who decided to rewrite large chunks of text deliberately as opposed to some later scribe who may have made additional small errors on top of two or three generations of previous small errors and still doesn't add up to that one nutjob's large errors.

      Now its hard (for me) to guess exactly how accurate a modern copy of the Quran and other texts would still be. I mean the hardcore Muslims would obviously claim its perfect because they kind of have to, but I have trouble believing that their ancient scribes were magically better at their jobs than the Christian scribes so unless they secretly had printing press technology 1000+ years before the rest of the world and we just somehow didn't notice, there's a good chance that Islam has also been slowly changed over the centuries, for better or worse.

      Keep in mind that the Muslim-controlled Middle East essentially kept reason and thought alive during the west's dark ages. Much of our modern math was started during that period (the word "algebra" comes from the Arabic "al-jabr," which is a pretty common story of course, and we use Arabic numerals instead of the old Roman ones because they're far superior -- or Hindu/Arabic if you want to fully credit their history!)

      Islam hasn't always been dominated by violent extremists. Nor has the west always been the rational part of the world. Just a matter of luck to be living in our particular period of time and much can change when you start looking on a scale of a few hundred years.

    62. Re:They sound completely insane by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's your link for the Islam numbers. Short version: The number of places under Sharia law is growing, and - more shocking -- the number of Muslims in western countries like the US and the UK who *wish* they were living under Sharia Law and would like to see their country change its legal system to one that was theology based is *growing.*

      47 percent of all American Christians identify themselves as "Evangelical," although only 62 percent of those "Evangelicals" believe that abortion should be illegal in all states, so they're probably not what you would describe as a real Pokemon-fearing Evangelical. Link with stats

      Look, I'm not here to do your homework for what is common sense to anyone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool Jihad apologist. Radical Islam is an existential threat to western civilization, and it's growing. Christianity is NOT an existential threat, and their numbers are diminishing. Get your head out of your ass and start doing some of the research yourself.

    63. Re:They sound completely insane by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Edit: 47 percent of American *Protestants* identify themselves as "Evangelical." Big difference...

    64. Re:They sound completely insane by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Look up what Sharia law is. You seem to think it's some sort of evil thing, a conspiracy against non-Muslims, that it supercedes national laws, etc.

    65. Re: They sound completely insane by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful (aka If I Only Had Mod Points)

    66. Re:They sound completely insane by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Hadd offences in Sharia law -- those for which there is no wiggle room for a judge in the assignment of penalty -- include amputation for thievery and stoning for adultery. If that's not evil, then at least admit is Medieval. Whether it is enacted upon Muslims or non-Muslims, who cares? It's downright barbaric.

    67. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should not climb the ladder then? Obviously there is a good reason for it huh?

    68. Re:They sound completely insane by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's not all of Sharia. Remember the Old Testament prescribes stoning for adultery. Most Jews and Christians don't follow that though. Likewise someone can follow Sharia without adopting all of the hadiths and fatwas out there, even though they follow most parts of it like Ramadan, not eating pork, giving to charities, not accepting interest payments, etc.

    69. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    70. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is Judaism, and yet we still call it racism.

    71. Re:They sound completely insane by Copid · · Score: 2

      I think of this a lot when I hear about atheism really "catching on." I wonder what percentage of the population has always thought the whole thing was nonsense and never wanted to spend the social capital (or the time in prison, depending on the culture) to say anything about it. That's why I can't really get all riled up about the "militant atheists" who supposedly mess everything up. The key service they offer is to provide cover to atheists to be honest about not believing.

      It's also just like gay rights: Everybody hated gay people when nobody knew any of them. As soon as everybody had a totally normal friend who admitted to being gay, we stopped thinking it was a great idea to kick them around, resulting in more people coming out. We didn't just suddenly create a bunch of gay people over the course of a generation.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    72. Re:They sound completely insane by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you serious? The Old Testament? No Christian sect of any size subscribes to that! It was all over-written by Jesus' teachings and the Mosaic antitheses from the New Testament. And yes, Muslims can choose to be moderate, but the point behind the stats quoted earlier is that a staggering (and growing) percentage are choosing the "let's stone the gays" flavor over the "religion of peace" flavor.

    73. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess 2/3rd of the world would gladly give up their poverty for the suffering of yours.

    74. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is no god summer, gotta rip that band-aid off now you'll thank me later." Rick Sanchez

    75. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you admit that not all christians calling themselves evangelical are really evangelical, but muslims that want sharias are taken on their word ?

      "Radical Islam is an existential threat to western civilization"
      The only way Radical Islam threatens western civilization is by making people racist, and sadly they are winning, thanks to people like you. Heil Drumpf !

    76. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, it's like a word's meaning evolve from the original meaning !
      No it couldn't be, words were created by God and don't evolve.

    77. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now replace that volcano with the sun. And replace that 'quick incinerate' from your example with the 'slow burn' from the sun. The firewalk on top of still glowing coals is optional,even. "So do we all really believe this stuff?" question remains, together with your response.
      ---
      Provocateur

    78. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are billions, and it's true that only a very small amount of them are what we would call "extremists". But to simply divide a billion+ people into "extremist" and "moderate" is overly simplistic. You've got countries where it's illegal for a woman to drive, or where they throw gays off buildings. The general trend is that Muslims that have been in the US for a while can adapt, but Europe shot themselves in the foot by taking in so many so fast that they often form sub-communities where they simply don't want to assimilate. Then, you get broken windows: if newcomers see the Muslims that have been there longer assimilating, they're more likely to do the same. But if they don't see that, then they won't. It's especially embarrassing for Europe since they're doing a favor for these people by accepting them as refugees, and are repaid with this.

    79. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005a/032505/032505ssn.htm

      I was as shocked as you are, but indeed they have.

    80. Re:They sound completely insane by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Actually, both Christianity and Islam are evolving. It's just that only the fundamentalists make the news. When we Americans read about idiot fundamentalist Christian sects, we write them off as wack jobs since we know 'regular' Christians don't do that. It's the same in Muslim countries.
      But when we Americans read about fundamental Muslims in other places, we assume they speak for all the billion Muslims in the world. (All the refugees that are abandoning ISI are Muslims, too).

      There are 950 different Christian sects and 700 different Islamic ones. Both the Amish and the Catholics think they are the one true religion.

    81. Re: They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what the dude is saying. Look at the bigger picture. Nowadays because Christianity doesn't have that political influence, they can't MAKE you like it so to survive, they've had to actually please the congregations. If your church doesn't appeal to enough people in a way that they enjoy, they can just go find another or quit all together. So all these so called evolutions of Christianity are actually just recruiting tactics. Not too long ago the pope did say that homosexuality is against the bible but they're also told to love everyone as god does so he's accepting it. Don't think for a second he or the church has actually changed their minds. They just know a losing battle when they see one. They need asses in seats to keep the money flowing in since they can no longer force you to tithe. Turning a blind eye to these tactics is just as fundamentalist as sharia law is. You know it too, but your loyalty to your faith won't allow you to see it.

    82. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      66 When will these people finally join the 21st century and stop basing their entire lives around this bullshit? 99

      They will stop being skeptical of skepticism when their petroleum runs out, OK?

      Eff-Tea-Eff-Wye! ~!~ Karl Martell ~!~ EDUCATE YOURSELF!

    83. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that the term "lukewarm" is used. It sounds an awful lot like the message to the late first century Christian community of Laodicea in John's Apocalypse. As for that Other Abrahamic Faith®, petroleum made it possible in not having to undergo reformation, cf Spotting the Losers: The Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States by Ralph Peters.

    84. Re:They sound completely insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There needs to be sufficient defamation cases filed and progressing to lead to a matter of first (or perhaps second) impression that Alinskyite labeling (calling people "racists", "sexist"," bigoted", "homophobe", etc.) constitutes "fighting words" under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

  6. Sorry, couldn't resist by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Israel: "Palestinian territories; gotta catch em all!"

    1. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia continues to bomb Yemen.

    2. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by murdocj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing, if the Arabs states had just let Israel be instead of trying to crush it in 1948, Israel would be a tiny bit of land that they wouldn't even notice. Instead, the whole "drive the Jews into the sea" thing kind of backfired on them.

    3. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Actually, Hitler, Jews, "Gotta Catch 'em All..."

      There's a time and a place for everything.

    4. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even more irony: if the Palestinians hadn't promised rivers of blood even earlier and agreed to what the Jews offered, Israelis wouldn't even have the area of land decided on by the UN: they would have less than 30% in the very northern tip, just south of Lebanon.*

      Of course, they probably all would have been murdered just a little later.

      And to rub salt in the wound: most of the lands in Israel have ancient titles stretching back into the Ottomon period. For a very long time Jews couldn't hold it, but leading into the end of the Ottomon Empire they began allowing Jews to buy the titles from the mostly Egyptian (but Muslim) landlords who held them. Most of the "dispossessed" Palestinians were not, in fact, in possession of the land, ever, either as native residents, a government, or people in any way, and were merely renters (they had been desert nomads). The Jews who were either in or moving into Israel? They began pooling all their resources to buy the land and houses from their legal owners, and when the time became suitable (e.g. having kids) they moved-in, having to ask their renters to go.

      So Palestinians really are the occupiers, not titleholders. A bunch of Jews are: with Ottoman and Egyptian seals on the old docs to prove it. But their government *did* offer to surrender that land if they would be peaceable dwelt with and allowed to have their own tiny state in the very most northern tip--and the idiots cried "there will be rivers of blood" instead, and so got what was theirs: nothing.

      * Lebanon too, by the way, was created (in that case by France) to keep an endlessly targeted group (Assyrian Christians) of Islam-mandated bloodthirst out of their grips, but they swarmed and outbred them, and back around 2005 the president was giving a veiled speech which basically begged Israel "for the love of God help and bomb our southern cities to kill Hamas."

    5. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if Israel didn't had expansionist ambition... These fanatics will burn the whole world if it get them to the promised land.

    6. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The Jews has been "pooling their money" to corrupt your government for centuries. They did as much even in the Roman empire days.

      They are a racist and supremacist hate cult. They never assimilate in the society they occupy, they always are hated, and always end up expelled. And somehow it is the host nation that is anti-semite? More like the Jews are anti-goyims.

    7. Re: Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To really understand the nature of these crazies, anytime they make a statement with the word 'Zionism', replace it with 'peaceful' (because that is the true underlying basis for Zionism). E.g.: Saudi Arabia Revives 15-Year-Old Ban On 'Peace-Promoting' Pokemon, Iran says the 'peaceful entities' must be wiped of the map, equate 'peaceful' to racism, we need to kill all the 'peaceful pigs'.....so yeah, they are all just crazy, cuz that is what they are really saying! It's all written to in the Old Testament, these descendants have not changes, thier Dna just sucks, and eventually will disappear.
      I
      I think the only way out of this mess is to build a wall, it's definitely much more humane than nuking them all, I suppose.

    8. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      2 wrongs don't make a right.

    9. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Funny thing, if an Israeli hadn't assassinated Rabin... You don't have a conflict this big without having irrational bigoted extremists on both sides.

    10. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually amazed you got modded up.

    11. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Threni · · Score: 2

      I always said this about hitler and poland, saddam and kuwait etc. But people call me a fucking idiot. Something about letting evil prevail?

    12. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trying to pretend there's anything approaching moral equivalency between these two sides is simply absurd. Israel is tolerant to the point of allowing pro-hamas people to sit on the knesset, the equivalent of America having pro-ISIS senators, while even the "moderate" Fatah openly calls for total genocide and the total eradication of Israel.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    13. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by stealth_finger · · Score: 1, Informative

      As if Israel didn't had expansionist ambition... These fanatics will burn the whole world if it get them to the promised land.

      And the last time they went on an offensive war was? Or by expansion do you mean taking land from the nations that attacked them and lost?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    14. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Boronx · · Score: 1

      It's would be the equivalent of allowing pro-confederacy senators. Which we did and still do.

    15. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palestinians were not, in fact, in possession of the land, ever, either as native residents, a government, or people in any way, and were merely renters (they had been desert nomads).

      Riiiight. The Palestinians were all actually desert nomad and all their houses (which they didn't live in) had all been bought up or rented by some kibbutz or whatever and all before the 1967 war. And they're even still paying the rent! Right. Very neat. Glad you cleared all that up for us.

    16. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


      Now replace "Jews" with any persecuted ethnic minority...

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    17. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing, if the Arabs states had just let Israel be instead of trying to crush it in 1948, Israel would be a tiny bit of land that they wouldn't even notice. Instead, the whole "drive the Jews into the sea" thing kind of backfired on them.

      Israel *still* is a tiny bit of land that they wouldn't even notice... Israel's area is about 1/500th of the total size of the Arab countries. It's Jewish population is about 1/300th of the world's Muslim population.

    18. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

      Evidently you missed this little thing called "reconstruction". Also your metaphor sucks because there hasn't been a confederacy for over a hundred years. I chose pro-ISIS for a reason, it's a currently extant group which is actively attacking the US (and damn near everyone else for that matter).

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    19. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And to rub salt in the wound: most of the lands in Israel have ancient titles stretching back into the Ottomon period. For a very long time Jews couldn't hold it, but leading into the end of the Ottomon Empire they began allowing Jews to buy the titles from the mostly Egyptian (but Muslim) landlords who held them.

      That may be true, but it was also true of most European countries in the feudal age. The natives still have a claim on the land, and will fight to keep it. Up to this day, all over the world, land distribution revolutions break out over very similar issues. Even the Nazis capitalized on resistance against land purchases by foreigners (obviously implied to be backed by a Jewish bankers) during the hyperinflation period, when everything German was dirt cheap for foreigners. You can find the point about foreign land ownership in the NSDAP programme.

      > they had been desert nomads

      Untrue. Vast majority of Palestinian population were agriculturalists according to Ottoman census, and Palestine was, by Ottoman standards, relatively densely populated, as it has always been since 12,000 BC (the Natufians being the oldest known sedentary culture). By middle eastern standards, it is good land.

    20. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hamas is the controlled opposition, there to pull the wool over the eyes of chumps like you.

    21. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you know that Israel started the 6-day war? (well they claim it was an pre-emptive counter-strike)

    22. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by ET3D · · Score: 1

      Were there ever Palestinian territories before Israel controlled them? They were Ottoman territories, then British Territories, then Jordanian and Egyptian territories.

    23. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I think so, but you have to go back a long way. Before the Romans, and maybe even the Assbyrypittites.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      While everything you've said is true to the best of my knowledge, this is a hilariously one-sided account. One might argue that you're intentionally lying by omission by omitting so much context.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    25. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "if the Arabs states had just let Israel be instead of trying to crush it in 1948, Israel would be a tiny bit of land that they wouldn't even notice."

      You are a fucking idiot and are guilty of spreading Zionist bullshit.

      It is the Israeli's who started - and continue - this conflict. If they would just leave the Palestinians alone and quite stealing their land and murdering their children there would be very little problems in the middle east.

      Sadly, Israel will never do the right thing and always attempts to point the finger at everyone else and refuses to accept responsibility for her genocide and warcrimes; whilst expecting pity from the rest of the world.

      Too bad for Israel that the world is rapidly awakening to the truth: That the root of 21st century terrorism lies almost exclusively in Zionism.

    26. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And the last time they went on an offensive war was?"

      Probably yesterday.

      "By Way of Deception" is their motto. They lie, cheat, steal and kill and make it look like someone else did it. Israel has always been treacherous and deceitful.

      They continually offend, lie, expect sympathy and compensation.

      Lather, rinse, repeat.

      Shame on you for supporting terrorists asshole.

    27. Re: Sorry, couldn't resist by Pergatory · · Score: 1

      "These are subhuman Aminals" ahhh, and the bigotry is laid bare. Regardless of how justified you might feel in making such a statement, it's racism plain and simple. You're generalizing a whole population based on the actions of the few that impact Israel. That makes you a racist, so please stop spewing your vitriol.

    28. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      No, you need like 25 wrong candy to evolve a wrong into a right.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    29. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said!

      And who's the Harbara Troll that modded you flamebait for telling the truth?

      Disgusting.

    30. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jews are not persecuted. FFS open your eyes.

    31. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the White in South-Africa or Rhodesia?

    32. Re: Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit 'the few'. The only few are the rational ones...It's a war between people, get that through your head. 90% of palifuckinstinians would love to see Israel burn so they can take over and continue thier blind followings of thier middle age demented mulas. They always have and they always will. Israel is .1% of the land of all surrounding Muslim countries, so WTF. If I were a Jew and I was surrounded by 99% of Jewish countries, I would get the fuck out and go to my fellow bros. the Jews have been doing that for centuries, but without a place to go, they wish they had that, but they don't, all they have now is a tiny priece of land smaller than NJ, and the fucking a-rabs are still bitching. Fuck them, and fuck all the so called left wing tree-hugging humanitarians than don't know shit about history.

    33. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There are parts where the confederacy still seems to exis and populations who act like it's still there. For instance in recent history we had the segregationists. We've got former Ku Klux Klan members in congress (from both parties) because there was a time when it was considered the problem thing to do if you were up and coming in politics in the South.

      I'm not trying to draw any moral equivalencies but to reject the opposite view - that Palestineans are pure evil and Israelis have never done anything wrong and have zero culpability. Which is absurd because Israel has gone out of its way to torpedo peace processes, and continues to build illegal settlements.

    34. Re: Sorry, couldn't resist by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You need to learn some history. Palestine was a land with mostly Arabs and a large and significant Jewish minority. Then the Palestineans were forcibly ejected from their own land. The first world mostly supported this because they were still in a colonialist mindset where they thought it was ok to draw lines on a map from the other side of the globe and declare what was or was not a new sovereign state. The reason they want the land back is because they used to live there for centuries, not because they're bigoted against Jews. Just because the Palestineans were Arabs does not mean they have much in common with other Arab countries or communities, they were pretty much looked down upon as an ethnic group by other Arab countries.

    35. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes me sad to see people on Slashdot defending Israel. Try reading more than a few sentences about a subject before saying something. During Mandatory Palestine, Zionist nationalists did plenty of damage to everyone else (Brits, Arab nationalists). Arab nationalists were not the sole aggressor. Their choice to not accept the UN partitioning of Palestine was clearly the right choice as Israel has done nothing but take a huge dump on the Palestinian people ever since, pushing them out of their homes starting in the late 1940s until occupying in 1967, and committing human rights violations like they're going out of style ever since.

      Have a taste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine

      "4. Declares all Israeli policies and practices of, or aimed at,
      annexation of the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including
      Jerusalem, to be illegal and in violation of international law and of the
      relevant United Nations resolutions"

      From http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r180.htm

    36. Re: Sorry, couldn't resist by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Mate you're the one that needs to learn some history that wasn't written by Electronic Intifada. "Palestine" was what the romans called the region of Judea, which Jews are indigenous to, and the region was virtually uninhabited according to everything from the ottoman empire's own census to the peel commission report. Even firsthand accounts of travelers such as Mark Twain and Arab historians such as Muqaddasi and Ibn Khaldun describe in detail how the region was so uninhabited the mosques were empty, and that the Jews were the only real permanent presence.

      If you go back before 1947 there is not nor has there ever been a distinct arab ethnicity called "palestinians". Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian, and executive members of the PLO along with many other major arab leaders and historians have all publicly stated unequivocably that "Palestinians" do not exist and are a political fiction invented to attack the Jews. The region was passed from conquerer to conquerer until the Jews started buying land from the Ottoman Empire, which itself fell and left the land to the British Empire, where the League of Nations and United Nations explicitly dedicated it to be returned to its native people.

      Even IF we were to grant that such a thing as a "Palestinian" existed though then by definition every resident of Israel AND Jordan would be a "Palestinian". After all the British Mandate stretched from the mediterranean coast to the far border of what is today known as Jordan, and Jordan was created at the exact same time as Israel. So if you think Israel was "stolen" by its indigenous people from colonialist arabs then you must surely think the same thing about Jordan.

      As for your claim that this has nothing to do with racism... I suggest you look up the Mufti's close alliance with Hitler, his tours of death camps such as Auschwitz, and the fact that from the very beginning the arab nations surrounding Israel have openly said (in arabic) that they simply want to murder all of the Jews and finish what Hitler started. They're perfectly happy to publicly admit this as long as they're talking in Arabic. There's a reason they chant "Slaughter the Jews" in the streets of Sweden.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    37. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing: the whole of modern America was populated on the basic rule that "whoever lives on the land, that person is the owner, regardless of what some piece of paper issued by a distant 'government' might say".

      So those Arab 'renters', their title was every bit as good as the first non-native-American settlers of, e.g., Wisconsin or Maine or Kentucky.

    38. Re: Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome! This is probably the best lesson of truth I've heard about the made up notion of Palestinians. Love it ðY'ðY.

      These Arabs are such idiots. Even if they thought they had something, it took the Jews to make flourish what once called a delolate unlivable place. And now that they did, the jealous Arabs feel entitled that it's theirs. Fuck that. All the Arab states are fucking breeding grounds for Medevil thinking. And they are all falling appart. Why the fuck would anyone want another fucked up Arab state. At least Israel is a normal modern country,,as much as it can be while surrounded by these crazies.

    39. Re: Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "- the Palestineans are pure evil and Israelis have never done anything wrong and have zero culpability."

      Yeah man, could not have said it better myself. You totally got it! Finally, someone that has the guts to say the truth!

    40. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stretching back into the Ottomon period.

      Ottomon? Is that a new Pokemon?

    41. Re:Sorry, couldn't resist by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Shame on you for supporting terrorists asshole.

      I never even mentioned hamas!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  7. Please Donald by amightywind · · Score: 0

    Ban all of these people from the United States.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Please Donald by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Heil Drumpf!

    2. Re:Please Donald by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Ban all of these people from the United States.

      Banning these violent haters has already started:

      http://media.breitbart.com/med...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwanism by Mateorabi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow, such insanity. Clearly Pokémon Go is promoting a Lamarckian Theory of Evolution, not a Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

    --
    "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

  9. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not even Lamarckian Evolution. This is much more metamorphosis than evolution. Despite the probable willful ignorance, I wander if they take issues with insects.

  10. OPPRESSIVE by axewolf · · Score: 0

    Everyone trot out your brainwashing complex and make ignorant statements about other cultures while ignoring analogous patterns of thought in our own

  11. Stock price by flopsquad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pokemon Go has been such a success that it has already doubled Nintendo's stock price after launching just two weeks ago.

    Well good luck maintaining that bubble, Nintendo, now that people can't openly play Pokemon Go in Saudi Arabia. Time to start shorting NTDOY and hoarding gold.

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    1. Re:Stock price by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Time to start shorting NTDOY and hoarding Golduck.

      FTFY.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  12. I'm pretty sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if the Middle East had their way, we would still be in the Dark Ages.

    We're gonna ban Pokemon, but it's cool to beat your wife or jail folks for "insulting" Islam and other ludicrous nonsense.

    How can a modern World leader, look them in the eye and not just bust out laughing ? How on Earth does anyone take them seriously on anything ?

    Unless they pull off a miracle, the entire Middle East will be instantly forgotten once our reliance on oil dries up.

    They really have nothing to fall back on.

    1. Re:I'm pretty sure by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      We're gonna ban Pokemon

      "We"? Are you Saudi Arabian?

      Did you even read the fucking headline?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:I'm pretty sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Willful misinterpretation is my favorite fallacy.

    3. Re:I'm pretty sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they pull off a miracle, the entire Middle East will be instantly forgotten once our reliance on oil dries up.

      They really have nothing to fall back on.

      Actually, they have. They know they end of oil is coming, and they are investing like a lot in foreign assets and companies. Take a look around at how many companies have been bought by middle eastern investors.

      They will lose power, but still keep enough to continue being taken seriously...

    4. Re:I'm pretty sure by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      if the Middle East had their way, we would still be in the Dark Ages.

      Which is interesting because while we were in the dark ages, the middle east was giving the world things like algebra.

      How on Earth does anyone take them seriously on anything ?

      They have guns.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:I'm pretty sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We"? Are you Saudi Arabian?

      Did you even read the fucking headline?

      * * * * *

      Think outside of your own little box for a moment and look at it from a Saudi point of view who is desperately trying to justify it.
      ( Do folks really need to explain this ? )

    6. Re:I'm pretty sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... are you serious?

      he's using a rhetorical device, you mouth breather.

    7. Re:I'm pretty sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They really have nothing to fall back on.

      Well they do buy a lot of weapons from us that they can shoot us with. So there is that.

    8. Re:I'm pretty sure by idji · · Score: 2

      And that is why Elon Musk might win a Nobel peace prize for making oil irrelevant in Americans' lives.

    9. Re:I'm pretty sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can a modern World leader, look them in the eye and not just bust out laughing ?

      Because the "modern world leader" does not find it absurd, but is rather jealous that the Saudi leaders can maintain life-long appointments to political power and an iron grip over a large and compliant population of serfs. Make no mistake: if western aristocrats get their way, we'll be right back to the dark ages as well. This experiment in individual liberty is coming to a close. Soon, the majority of the population will be returned to their proper status in society (livestock).

  13. As usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are stuck with their heads so far up their collective butts they refuse to accept anything new that differ even slightly from how they lived a thousand years ago.

  14. Is religion a tool? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems strange that such a strong faith can not stand against the threat of a kid's game without the help of force.
    Unless the force is more a matter of control operating under the guise of faith.

    Perhaps a way to the truth is the following:
    Genesis 41 tells the story of Joseph and the wisdom of keeping a storehouse of grain for the people to guard against 7 years of famine.
    I wonder how believers in the Quran feel about this.
    Although corrupted by translation and time, the basic story still rings true.
    In today's world, the grain stores might be the sovereign wealth fund and the famine the current oil situation.
    If so, then the wealth fund belongs to the people and is only held in trust by the government.
    Is this consistent with how the fund is being used?

  15. pokeymon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would it be possible to put a "gym" or whatever in the hell, it is on the location of the Kaaba in Mecca?

    Not to single anyone out, could we also drop a few on various religious sites around teh world?

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

      Fantastic idea!

    2. Re:pokeymon by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Let's leave out Catholic churches though please, too dangerous for the young boys.

    3. Re:pokeymon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And the wives. Priests of all religions boinking hte milfs is a known social problem in *all* religions, including the Wiccans. Actually, it's the whole *point* of the wiccans....

  16. This kingdom has to go by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    "Firstly, the game is seen as a form of gambling, which itself is forbidden. Secondly, it encourages belief in Darwin's theory of evolution, and thirdly, the fatwa says, the symbols used in the game promote the Shinto religion of Japan, Christianity, Freemasonry and 'global Zionism.'" The ruling says: "The symbols and logos of devious religions and organizations are used [including] the six-pointed star: You rarely find a card that does not contain such a star. It is associated with Judaism, the logo and sign of the State of Israel, and the first symbol of the Masonry organizations in the world.""

    For the good of humanity, let's all hope that Trump finds some excuse to sack Saudi Arabia and permanently deprive it of any assets, power in the world, and religious influence in the region.

    1. Re:This kingdom has to go by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Mecca is there... it's kind of a big deal in Islam.

    2. Re:This kingdom has to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mecca is there... it's kind of a big deal in Islam.

      Mecca. Is that one of those giant robots that people drive? Walking tanks?

    3. Re:This kingdom has to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Trump will solve all the problems, he's the best at diplomacy, and the best at military, the world doesn't stand a chance.

    4. Re:This kingdom has to go by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Mecca is there... it's kind of a big deal in Islam.

      And Saudi influence on it is what is ruining Islam right now. Look up Wahhabism, and you'll see what I mean.

    5. Re:This kingdom has to go by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      "Firstly, the game is seen as a form of gambling, which itself is forbidden. Secondly, it encourages belief in Darwin's theory of evolution, and thirdly, the fatwa says, the symbols used in the game promote the Shinto religion of Japan, Christianity, Freemasonry and 'global Zionism.'"

      Somebody needs to tell them that it's not a Star of David, it's a sheriff's badge.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:This kingdom has to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mecca is there... it's kind of a big deal in Islam.

      Islam is the problem. Mecca, the Quran, Hudud, Sharia. Those things are all part of the problem. Mecca should be razed and replaced with a scientific institution.

      If you discount anything related to Islam then you find Earth is pretty darn peaceful.

    7. Re:This kingdom has to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bethlehem is a pretty big deal in Christianity. What's your point?

    8. Re:This kingdom has to go by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      The Saudis will continue to have "assets, power in the world, and religious influence in the region." Maybe the royal family there could get the axe from a populist movement, but as a whole they'll never recede in prestige. Look out how Christian fundamentalists millenialists talk about Israel.

    9. Re:This kingdom has to go by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Somebody needs to tell them that it's not a Star of David, it's a sheriff's badge.

      No, that just proves that sherrifs and by extension America is just a tool of the Zionists.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  17. Conflicts with Reality by Nivag064 · · Score: 2

    If a Law Conflicts with Reality, then the Law brings itself into Disrepute!

  18. There but for the grace of... by Early+Six+Digit+UID · · Score: 5, Funny

    Man, I'm glad we don't have any of that craziness here in the US...
    ...damn

    1. Re:There but for the grace of... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Man, I'm glad we don't have any of that craziness here in the US...

      Stop interrupting. We're trying to have our Two Minutes Hate against Muslims here. No fair bringing up our own Right Wing Conservative Theocrats.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:There but for the grace of... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Wow... just wow.

      Now understand that I clicked that link fully expecting a whole lot of religious crazy.

      And I was still not even slightly prepared for the direction it took.

    3. Re:There but for the grace of... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      And I was still not even slightly prepared for the direction it took

      It looked to me that they were saying pokemon was evil beyond redemption for having pictures of "demons" but a self declared actual former "demon summoner" should be respected and believed without question. Beyond the far side of crazy and not what most people would even associate with the fringes of a religion.

    4. Re:There but for the grace of... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      but a self declared actual former "demon summoner" should be respected and believed without question.

      Well, to be fair, he was able to identify all the pokemon er... poke-demon attack types, from his direct personal experience with them. How does that not command instant faith and respect?

      Beyond the far side of crazy

      To where the days have 4 corners. timecube!!

    5. Re:There but for the grace of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So where's the part where they pass legislation that makes it legal to imprison you for not adhering to the ban?

      Xenophilic Islamophiliacs are some of the stupidest people on the planet....

    6. Re:There but for the grace of... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the loonies don't run the mental institution over here.

      Not yet at least, give it a while.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:There but for the grace of... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Man, I'm glad we don't have any of that craziness here in the US... ...damn

      There's a difference between a few randoms showing concern and a government banning on overtly religious bullshit reasons. When Obama or whichever fuckup get the job next is saying the same, then you have a point.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    8. Re:There but for the grace of... by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Man, I'm glad we don't have any of that craziness here in the US...

      Stop interrupting. We're trying to have our Two Minutes Hate against Muslims here. No fair bringing up our own Right Wing Conservative Theocrats.

      Because a random person on the internet equates to a national government?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re:There but for the grace of... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Man, I'm glad we don't have any of that craziness here in the US...

      Stop interrupting. We're trying to have our Two Minutes Hate against Muslims here. No fair bringing up our own Right Wing Conservative Theocrats.

      You seriously can't see the difference between "legislated madness" and "religious belief"?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    10. Re:There but for the grace of... by dskoll · · Score: 1

      In Saudi Arabia, witchcraft is still a crime and people are actually still prosecuted for it. Just look at this weird shit they do.

    11. Re:There but for the grace of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is one of the funniest reads I've had in a long time !

      Well played sir :)

    12. Re:There but for the grace of... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the loonies don't run the mental institution over here.

      Brother, we're getting close.

      http://www.vanityfair.com/news...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:There but for the grace of... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because a random person on the internet equates to a national government?

      We have random people on the Internet running for president. It's not that big a leap.

      Think about the news in the past week. We had a Duck Dynasty guy speaking at the national convention of a major political party. We had another speaker at that convention claim that the opponent is "serving Lucifer". The clock is running on our moral superiority.

      http://www.dailysquat.com/wp-c...

      https://twitter.com/JasonHavey...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:There but for the grace of... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Clinton as the devil? C'mon, she ain't that big.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:There but for the grace of... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      People are nuts to be sure, religious folk, some at least especially so, but you have to admit this is a breed apart. Luckily we mostly manage to keep them at bay in the west but you are right, it can be pretty precarious and if they got the power I wouldn't put it past them to try and keep it as hard as these guys.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re:There but for the grace of... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes I suppose.
      Speaking of confidence tricksters a really funny thing is Pokemon initially had monsters called Uri and Gellar - things with a psychic attack holding bent cutlery. Uri Gellar got annoyed so they changed the names to Abra and Cadabra which resulted in witch-hunting fundamentalists using the names as proof that Pokemon is demonic.
      An even funner thing is that it's left as Pokemon because it just doesn't sound right to encourage kids to play with their pocket monster.

    17. Re:There but for the grace of... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for society keeping religious loonies in check we'd be picking on people in the name of witchcraft too.

    18. Re:There but for the grace of... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The clock is running on our moral superiority.

      More like the clock is running out on the Republican party. If they are not able to sway their based to give up some of their more radical ideas, they will start losing more and more as demographics in the US change, and as society as a whole stops believing in nonsense.

      They didn't call out the loons in their party for years, and now the loons have real sway over the party. They shoved the overton window so far right, that if they don't find a way to shift it back to match reality, the party will crumble.

      At least I hope so. The alternative would be ugly.

  19. Turkey by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is where Turkey is headed now too, after the staged coup which was used as justification for purging tens of thousands of secular leaning judges, teachers and soldiers.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Turkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the coup was betrayed and had no chance of success, many of the "conspirators" did not know they were part of a coup, Erdogan maneurvered to crush it within hours, and he kicked of an absolutely massive purge immediately after doesn't mean it was staged!

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

      To be fair you'd expect most participants in a military coup to not know it was a coup, or at the very least not question it. Chain of command is part of how they work.

    3. Re:Turkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

    4. Re:Turkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will spend our time collecting and nurturing Turkish secularists in the future. Collect them all, for the betterment of your society!

    5. Re:Turkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, my bet is at least a million dead or disappeared turks within 15 years. If you're an academic in Turkey, get out while you can, academics never do well in these situations as they're seen as sources of sedition.

    6. Re:Turkey by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you have to have a story better than "training exercise" or your guys wont fight.

    7. Re:Turkey by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If this coup wasn't staged, it was the most dilettante coup since November 1923. You really want to tell me that a military that led 4 successful coups since WW2 would commit every cardinal sin in the "how to fuck up a coup" book?

      If you believe that, I have a bridge with a wonderful view over the San Francisco harbor to sell to you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Turkey by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Gotta jail them all.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Turkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... secular leaning judges, teachers and soldiers.

      Yes. The people who watch western media, drink alcohol, look abroad for their culture, and want individual freedoms for themselves.
      Yes. These people are being purged by the democratically elected leader of a majority muslim state who no longer wish to these people to hold influential positions in their religious, conservative country.

      But No! It's not right that the people can decide that! They must decide to allow everyone to do the things I, Johnny Suburb, approve of. It's not right when they dont!
      - Turkey must, unconditionally, support freedom of speech for All; except for anyone engaged in hate speech, homophobia, or supporting ISIS obviously
      - Turkey must uphold the rule of law; except when giving big corporations tax breaks or renditioning terrorists
      - Turkey must care for refugees humanely; but don't you dare let them all into our countries
      - Turkey must open up the internet; except to the likes of torrent sites or Russian propaganda obviously
      - Turkey must subscribe to non-violence; except we need them to be in NATO to soak up the first nukes
      - Turkey must have freedom of religion; except for those damn dirty daesh preachers!
      - Turkey must respect the outcomes of democracy; except when the people choose an obviously authoritarian leader like Ergodan

      Why is it that people in other countries must subscribe to an often cherry-picked subset of our hollowed out western ideals? People with their own history, religion, laws, traditions, philosophy, and way of life must unconditionally submit their societies to Western Shock Therapy, with any actually democratic attempts to assert their own nation's sovereignty effectively treated as peasant uprising by the usual commentariat.

      I personally believe in western, liberal, democracy and its principles, and not the a la carte way that has recently become more fashionable. But I also believe, very strongly, in the principle of self-determination for nations. It is for the people of a nation to decide how their society, collectively, will function, certainly not for me or for any other foreigner. Western efforts to impose, yes impose, our values and institutions through means military, colonial, cultural, political, technological, and communicatory, these efforts are wrong. It is wrong to impose our society on others.

      You either persuade by argument, or by example. As the modern west slowly implodes, our example is no longer one to follow, and as other societies become more educated, our so called great intellectualism is no longer persuasive. Our hollowed out excuse for a civilization, financialised and cynical, is not one other nations see as aspirational anymore. The Turks have decided; they want to be Islamic. Who are we -- who the hell are we -- to say that they are wrong?

    10. Re:Turkey by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      Maybe, although that is probably the best case scenario. The main problem is Erdogan is rapidly making enemies (remember he only had a slight majority in the elections) and the more 'conspirators' he locks up, the more enemies he will make. Saudi has the advantage that it essentially keeps its population under control by giving them all lots of money. The motivation to do something about a regime that is giving you a lavish and comfortable life is much lower than to do something about one that is locking up your family members.

      Very very sadly (I love the country, Istanbul is probably my favorite city in Europe) I think this will end in a wider civil war. There is already a civil war in the east that Erdogan restarted with the Kurds, and I fear it will break out into a wider conflict now. You'll first see more insurgent action, but I think Erdogan will eventually start outright attacking his own towns and cities as his enemies pile up and become more resolved. Inevitably this opposition will end up looking across the Syrian border for support, and before you know it ISIS fascism has appeared in the country, the West is halfheartedly propping up an increasingly repressive Erdogan , and the whole place has fallen to pieces. That's basically what happened in Syria, and it really is the saddest thing for what was, until recently, a relatively moderate country full of amazing people and culture.

    11. Re:Turkey by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      To be fair you'd expect most participants in a military coup to not know it was a coup, or at the very least not question it. Chain of command is part of how they work.

      Get your men, we're attacking the president's house.

      Right-o

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  20. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Kafkaist Evolution.

  21. OH NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are truly at a wonderous age: when a video game creates more wealth than black sticky stuff that comes out of the ground. Oh, and I'm tolerant of Shintoists, Freemasons, Christians and Jews (all of whom make it a priority to be tolerant of others). I would not trust any religion that was younger than 1500 years old though. Less than 1500 and its just a made-up cult created by people who felt disenfranchised by the already-established world religions (read sore losers). You could even expect them to plagiarize more than Melania Trump (and then try to argue that everyone else is illigitimate, go crazy with guns, try to blow up everyone elses sacred sites, etc). If their philosophy were worth anything at all (if it truly were truly backstopped by God), then God could protect it and wouldn't need extremes: guns, suicide bombs, intolerance of others, shouting others down, destruction of others sacred sites, etc. If however it was a work of fiction, then there is no Godly support. Its a fraud and a fake and you will need guns, bombs and intolerence, because its illegitimate and God will be against it. Those following it will suffer greatly, God would make where they gather in mass a hot firey place, there would be great suffering, there would be sacrifices and killing, death would surround them, because God would be angry with them and they would be an abomination to God. Just sayin.

    1. Re:OH NO! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So religions have to age and season? Like cheese, when it reeks it's finally ok for consumption?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Re:So how is this different from Liberal brain was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you had to go further than all the other racists idiots of this page, good job.

  23. Thank you, Wahhabist lunatics, for making my day. by cunina · · Score: 1

    There are at least six laugh-out-loud nuggets of comedy gold in the article summary alone.

  24. Fatwa #24,687 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but that just sounds a lot like a Guru Meditation message on the Amiga. Amazing that people actually follow this kind of thing...

  25. Remind me again by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why we're friends with these guys? Oh yeah, cheap oil for our cars. Well I guess it's either that or the bus...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Remind me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to build a THOUSAND small nuclear reactors. Put them where every petrol power plant sits. Drive oil to $20/barrel and then they will stop being a problem for people outside their piece of desert. More Nukes, Less Kooks!

  26. I once met a guy who would not let his kids go to by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    see Harry Potter movies because "they promote witchcraft". Yes, he was an adult and father of three sons.

  27. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know, it looks and sounds weird, but I believe you mean Kafkaesque. Unrelated, but also weird, is Picassoid.

  28. CIA are focusing on Pokemon on the daily here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Distract, but still die.

  29. The ban doesn't appear to be working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just because it has been condemned by the General Secretariat of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars doesn't mean people won't be playing it. As I walk around Riyadh I can see many people playing Pokemon Go, so perhaps not such a big deal as some of the posters make out.

    1. Re:The ban doesn't appear to be working by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      ssh... we're getting our outraged muslim hate on

    2. Re:The ban doesn't appear to be working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After the first person is stoned to death, you will see a difference.

  30. When anything gets popular..... by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

    When anything gets popular, all the hacks come out to ride on it's bandwagon of attention.

    This must be some law of the internet, surely.

    Anyway, suck it religious leaders. For once, something has got better hypnosis powers than you have - and by that I mean Psyduck.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  31. Re:FREE PALESTINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well certainly no one would PAY for it, in the condition Hamas and the PA have put it in.

  32. The Religion of Peace and Tolerance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reality is that it's a barbaric 6th century ideology that controls every facet of your life.

  33. Religion of Peace and Reason! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kowtowing to them and letting millions of migrants into our countries is perfectly reasonable!

  34. Fatwas have a number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what silliness is included in the other 21,757 pronouncements

    1. Re:Fatwas have a number? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there's a collection you can read up, I bet that should provide some entertainment and enough material to run a YouTube channel about it, showing off what you cannot do in Saudi Arabia because it offends their imaginary buddy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  35. Times of Israel is ludicrous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The wording of that statement was "Time of Israels" invention. When you read the actual ban, it's because the original Pokemon game, is a gambling game, teaching kids to bet cards to win cards.

    The "zionist" blah blah blah, is just Times of Israel adding an Israel angle to everything.... oooo the poor Israeli's....everything is about them..... ooo let them go kill a few more thousand Gaza people because their world is so harsh..... the usual Israeli bullshit.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/20/top-saudi-clerics-ban-pokemon-go/87330916/

    1. Re:Times of Israel is ludicrous by Sun · · Score: 1

      It's a pretty straight forward question. Is Israel and Zionism mentioned in the Fatwa? If so, it is completely reasonable for different sources to highlight different aspects of the Fatwa. If not, then the Times of Israel has made up facts, which is a serious problem.

      Which is it? I don't know. I couldn't find the original Fatwa, and I doubt I'd be able to read it if I did.

      Shachar

  36. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by johannesg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, such insanity. Clearly Pokémon Go is promoting a Lamarckian Theory of Evolution, not a Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

    We are talking about a people who don't build any buildings with triangles in them, just because the triangle is a symbol of Christianity (it represents the father, son, and holy spirit). And who ban words with the letter 'X' in them because the X resembles a cross. I don't see why we should have any expectation of rationality out of that bunch.

  37. Fisting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clerics in Saudi Arabia can go fist themselves with a cestus.

    1. Re:Fisting. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure there's a Fatwa that clearly states they cannot.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  38. They are by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They sound completely insane

    Haven't you noticed, muslims are often completely insane? So frequently one will attack people, saying that it is for Islam, but then everyone will say "it wasn't really, he's just insane". And there's the way that they go around murdering people n completely different countries just because someone drew a picture, made a film, or wrote a book they didn't like.

  39. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Wow, such insanity. Clearly Pokémon Go is promoting a Lamarckian Theory of Evolution, not a Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

    I think it's just the word evolution they don't like, it's clear they don't understand the concept under any guise. I wonder if they'd have called them transformations they would still have the same beef.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  40. Question by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Do people in SA raf slashdot?

    1. Re: Question by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Do people in SA read slashdot?

    2. Re: Question by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Are they even allowed to read?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  41. Religion is a mental disorder by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least it would fulfill every criteria in the ICD-10 F22.0 definition of delusion if religions were not explicitly exempt. Because, well, what's the difference between a delusion and a religion except the fact that a lot of people have the same delusion?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by dskoll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only is religion a mental disorder, it has the dubious distinction of being a communicable mental illness, which is something very rare indeed.

    2. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That works for all the other delusions as well. Religions, cults, conspiracy theories, SJWs... same shit, different name.

      In the end, they all claim to have the moral high ground, they claim they have the truth, they have zero problem with internal contradictions and anyone who dares to tell them that they're crazy, and offer logical, conclusive examples on why they are, are heretics/shills/whatever.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only is religion a mental disorder, it has the dubious distinction of being a communicable mental illness, which is something very rare indeed.

      I'm not sure that communicable mental illnesses are so rare. Belief in things like racial superiority and class superiority, along with the various forms of servitude or outright slavery they engender, are also communicable 'social diseases'. Then there are various irrational 'fad' beliefs, such as those of anti-vaxxers. Hell, advertising and marketing are the commercial versions of mental disease propagation. (It's interesting that 'propaganda' and 'propagate' share a common Latin root).

      Because we humans can communicate with a great degree of specificity and detail, various forms of mental, emotional, and intellectual health deficits are communicable. Language is a mental disease vector.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    4. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Mainly not a delusion by virtue of being true.

      But yes, to state your position accurately, per the DSM, any viewpoint that is held by a majority of one's culture cannot be a "delusion", by definition. This is not limited to religions.

      It can be wrong, it cannot be a delusion. Using delusional definitions of "delusion" does not alter this.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    5. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

      Not my definition, I copied from Wikipedia.

      Do I need to point out that there are people who think that talking snake in Genesis is real? Despite irrefutable proof that snakes are incapable of speech...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      And what is your "evidence to the contrary"?

      Here's some peer-reviewed evidence on my side while I wait for whatever standard non-sequitur you have to offer, showing "evidence" against a Straw Man theological position of your choosing.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    7. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Anecdotic evidence isn't. If it was, we'd have more "proof" for the existence of aliens, the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot than even for God.

      And I sure hope you don't expect me to provide proof that snakes cannot talk. Aside of not having the mental capacity, the lack of vocal chords, the lack of a mouth capable of producing a differentiated enough set of sounds... I mean, seriously?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      No, again, this is peer-reviewed, quantified, eyewitness evidence as provided by among the most respected medical journals in the world.

      It is not anecdotal. It is a peer-reviewed study of the phenomenon. By your standards, even aside from that, no court case is ever valid, because all the witnesses are simply giving "anecdotal" evidence. It does not work like that. "Evidence" does not mean that.

      As for the snake, firstly, I thought you were making a claim of evidence toward an actual philosophical position of wide scope, e.g. "God does not exist, and the belief is a delusion". If you are simply claiming evidence Genesis is an allegory, state that.

      Regardless of that question, you are presenting as "evidence" simply a reiteration of the same basic premise--that there are no supernatural events. That is simply an unproven assertion, which, to be systematic about, science does not even address--except insofar that Quantum Mechanics verifies absolutely anything can happen, as a matter of basic physics, it's simply a matter of probability. The Newtonian physics that you seem to be relying on for your determinations, likewise, has no mechanism to even possibly demonstrate it accounts for all possible phenomena--in fact it is the very nature of any scientific theory that it is permanent left open to new observations by which to inform the theoretical model. Where is your evidence it didn't happen, since science itself says you can't make such a determination?

      So, yes, I understand you're merely parroting Dawkins (I assume you can comprehend how 'parrot' is being used here), with this "delusion" characterization, but given that neither you nor he are actual authorities on psychiatry, and the ones who are (contrary to random Wikipedia self-appointed authorities) say directly that your usage of the word is scientifically wrong, I suggest reconsidering its rhetorical effectiveness. Along with your simple restatement in different forms that "supernatural things don't happen". Feel free to present your evidence for that premise, because that covers the entirety of what you are asserting.

      Along the way, you might want to examine, personally, exactly why you don't focus on the fact that the text you are addressing asserts that snakes originally had legs, and then lost them, a biological progression only recently scientifically verified. You prefer to focus on "things I haven't seen don't happen, and somehow contrary to all science that means they can't happen and we know we will never see them". And you prefer to not make the slightest effort to formulate a preferable alternative within the context of what may be a) allegorical, or b) performed by other means. I have not the slightest expectation that assuming it is not allegory, the snake moved its mouth and used some snake vocal cords to speak. People even of that day would not write that down as if it were naturally plausible as a common occurrence. The snake is stated as the material presentation of an angel, that is, Satan. A form of spiritual, or mental, communication seems far more reasonable as to how the communication transpired, consistent with how it happens everywhere else in the bible. Nobody thought a burning bush had vocal cords, either.

      You seek the view you consider most implausible as to what the intent of the story is, and then further insist on the least plausible, personally made-up specifics for you to simply claim would have to be the case for it to happen. Why do you do that? It shows not the least intellectual honesty, or even scientific integrity, for that matter.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    9. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, again, this is peer-reviewed, quantified, eyewitness evidence

      ...evidence for what, exactly?

      The link you gave sent me to a study about near-death experiences (NDE)

      First, the link you gave asks me to create an account to see the whole thing. No thanks to that so I searched for a different site.

      http://profezie3m.altervista.o...

      From my link, it tells me that of the 509 cases from 344 patients, only 62, or 18% of patients reports some level of recalling NDE. Not a very high number. You can't even be that one in five dentist who won't recommend sugar free gum!

      Second, even if we take that 18% at face value, so what? So what if NDE exists? An NDE isn't evidence for religion or the supernatural. People once thought comets and solar eclipses were supernatural, and those were a lot easier to observe. Now we have a better understanding of them. That there may be something out there that we haven't fully observed or understood (yet) is not evidence that the supernatural exists. If you think that proves something about the supernatural or God, you're essentially presenting a God of the gaps argument there

      you are presenting as "evidence" simply a reiteration of the same basic premise--that there are no supernatural events

      No, it is you who are operating under the same basic premise that he has to somehow prove a negative to you. How about you prove to me that there is no invisible teacup hanging out on the dark side of the moon?

      The onus is on you (well, the religious) to prove that the supernatural, gods, or whatever else your holy book says is true, is true.

      To not understand something so basic and to try and hide it with the diatribe that is the rest of your post, it is you who lack intellectual honesty and scientific integrity, my friend.

    10. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Well, we'll have to summarize here, since you are, to my view, not treating the material honestly and are doing the standard goalpost shifting to "proof" when "evidence" is what is at hand.

      You made the positive claim, that religious people are "delusional". It's yours to back up. And in that, I won't copy your disingenuous demand for "proof", simply your own claim that you had "evidence to the contrary". Evidence will be fine. You have provided none of your assertion.

      It is not my assertion that all people experience an NDE, particularly given that there's a range of what can be considered to constitute "death" from a scientific perspective, and it's only the spiritual definition that would be determinant. That it happens at all is remarkable. You know this to be notable. You know this is evidence. If you say otherwise, you know you are lying.

      If, in fact, you check actual history and the documents of the religion under discussion, you will find there is no significant difference between what people considered "natural phenomenon" then, and what we would consider such now. We simply have more causal details. They did not think every instance of lightning was God's direct intervention. How life and death and aging "normally" worked was very clear. What they would say was a miracle then, and what things we would say were a miracle now, are exactly the same. This is the case even if we stipulated miracles don't exist, and again, this is the facts of the matter (historical, this time), of your parroted revisionist Dawkins/Hitchens non-history. We haven't "gotten smarter" about this, there is no evidence of any transition between what was "natural" then and what was "natural" now. Feel free to read the book to verify as a historical matter, since although you may choose to reject the content, you can't reject the writing as reflective of the perceptions of people as of that time.

      "God of the gaps" is an entirely fallacious argument, by the way, and entirely so on the atheist side. It is internally logically nonsense, as constructed as an very poor argument of what theists do, which we don't, and only the atheist by throwing the claim is doing. No theist says the false dichotomy of "either the event is entirely supernatural, or we understand it". All supernatural events would have a material, natural component to the causal chain, and modern understanding those causal chains in more specific detail on a physics level alters nothing. As we progress in time, we do not move from "everything must have been a god doing it" to "now we know the material specifics, which excludes a god as an original cause". There is no such false alternative, in reality. Whether a supernatural agency did X or not, knowing more physics does not address that question. That false dichotomy is all yours, and the "intellectuals" you parrot.

      And no, it in no way a requirement I prove it to you--that would be equivalent forced conversion. In other words, you absolutely do not want what you claim you want, "proof".

      So, anyway, though I could just reread some Dawkins to get all the content of your brain, for you personally, I suggest reconsidering these before you get inevitably Naturally Deselected and irrelevant to this and every discussion. Your move.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    11. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by bigpat · · Score: 1

      That works for all the other delusions as well. Religions, cults, conspiracy theories, SJWs... same shit, different name.

      In the end, they all claim to have the moral high ground, they claim they have the truth, they have zero problem with internal contradictions and anyone who dares to tell them that they're crazy, and offer logical, conclusive examples on why they are, are heretics/shills/whatever.

      Cynicism about other people's beliefs work that way too.

    12. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but a near-death experience can, by definition, not be peer-reviewed. I cannot verify or falsify in any way whatsoever whether you have a near-death experience. What you have here is people claiming that they have seen or experienced something. An interesting question now would be what religion they belong to and what expectations they had for death. I trust that you understand the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      And if you dislike the snake example, take the "person gets nailed to a cross, dies, gets buried and ascends to the sky after three days" one instead. Or is that still an allegory? You might want to check if you're really a Christian, though, if you think so...

      As for court cases, yes, you will notice that material evidence usually trumps witness claims. In other words, if you claim that I was with you throughout the evening but my DNA is found on the corpse, the judge would more likely assume that you're lying than that the DNA flew there in some miraculous way. In science, material evidence is the only permissible evidence. For the reasons I mentioned before: If eyewitness accounts were permissible, we'd have a lot of "proof" for aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the riders of the Apocalypse. People err and people lie. Twice so in a stressful situation.

      As for quantum mechanics, yes, really odd stuff happens in that funky world of the subatomic. But that doesn't translate into our "normal" space. Tunneling may be common for quantum particles but I have never seen a ball pass right through a door. At least not without first breaking the glass pane.

      And yes, snakes once had legs and lost them. But that doesn't happen in just 6000 years. You can't have both, an earth that's only a few thousand years old and evolution that takes thousands of generations for just a minimal change, and that only if there's a good reason for change.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we'll have to summarize here, since you are, to my view, not treating the material honestly and are doing the standard goalpost shifting to "proof" when "evidence" is what is at hand.

      You're just playing with semantics. You can replace "proof" with "evidence" and the underlying point remains the same: burden is on you to present it (proof, evidence, whatever)

      You made the positive claim, that religious people are "delusional". It's yours to back up.

      First, I'm not Opportunist. Notice how I refer to him as "he" both here and my last post. Let's get that clear.

      Second, he did back up his claim. Or provide evidence if you will. He pointed out an example of talking snakes, with the implication (easily verifiable) that there are people who believe their holy books are to be taken literally word for word.

      It is not my assertion that all people experience an NDE

      And I didn't say you asserted that. That's why I asked what your link is evidence for. You the one who said that the link is evidence for your side. I'm asking evidence for what, and my post outlined some of the things it is not evidence for. If your link is supposed to be evidence for something else, feel free to elaborate. I have yet to see you do so.

      it's only the spiritual definition that would be determinant

      No it wouldn't. Who said it would be?

      This looks to me like you're the one trying to move the goal post here, to a definition that's convenient for you :)

      That it happens at all is remarkable

      Remarkable about WHAT?

      You know this to be notable. You know this is evidence.

      Evidence for WHAT?

      If you say otherwise, you know you are lying.

      Oh wow, so in other words, "agree with me or you're lying"?

      But let's say I do agree with you that it is evidence. But that again leads back to the question: evidence for WHAT?

      If, in fact, you check actual history and the documents

      And if you check my actual post, you'll find the rest of you paragraph has nothing to do with what I said.

      Let me make a summary: you provided a link that said it is evidence for your side. I'm asking you: evidence for WHAT exactly?

      The point of the supernatural is that your study doesn't tell us anything about the supernatural. Again, if you're trying to say something else, say it without beating around the bush and telling me to go read more. I'm interested in talking to you, not the documents and writings you want me to read.

      As for "God of the gaps", you completely misunderstand what it is. A god of the gaps argument is one used by theists, and it has been used by theists, that because a scientist/atheist/whatever cannot explain X (yet), X is evidence for God/the supernatural. It doesn't require any theist to hold the false dichotomy you think people assume theists hold.

      And btw, God of the gaps is something invented by Christian theologians as a criticism to weak arguments for God's existence. I'm following that spirit: I'm pointing out that the evidence you presented is not strong evidence for some of the things "your side" believe in.

      Again though, I'm still unsure what evidence your link is for. You've spent much of your post attacking me (telling me to go read, insinuating I'm just parroting words, accusing me being disingenuous, etc) instead of clarifying your own position. The ball is in YOUR court on how to continue.

    14. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      That it happens at all is remarkable.

      Spoken like someone with zero understanding of neuroscience. You take a brain, you reduce its oxygen intake (as happens in the physically stressful situations that induce "near-death"), and you get hallucinations. No supernatural entities need apply.

      Tunnel vision (including the cliche "white light") is very commonly reported among pilots pulling high-G, which is a nicely repeatable way of temporarily reducing blood (and therefore oxygen) flow to the brain.

      You know this to be notable. You know this is evidence. If you say otherwise, you know you are lying.

      My, that's a shiny crystal ball you have there. By your own testimony, you're clearly under the delusion that you know exactly what GP knows/thinks.

      Typical theist LOLgic.

    15. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Check the study, the experiences are complex and well beyond "white light". It is wholly unrealistic, if you check the actual experiences, to dismiss them as simple brain failure.

      And if you read the study, and assert otherwise, you indeed also know you are lying. It's manifestly obvious it is evidence, as much so as any other example of "evidence". Note, as well, that you have an alternate explanation, does -not-, in this case or any other whatsoever, mean it is not evidence for the original scenario. At best (from your perspective), it is then evidence for -both- possibilities. Pointing out the guy whose apartment has the smoking gun has a roommate, does -not- change the fact it is still evidence against the suspect.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    16. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Since most of this was answered to the other AC, or the OP, I'll address the part that wasn't.

      As for "God of the gaps", you completely misunderstand what it is. A god of the gaps argument is one used by theists, and it has been used by theists, that because a scientist/atheist/whatever cannot explain X (yet), X is evidence for God/the supernatural. It doesn't require any theist to hold the false dichotomy you think people assume theists hold.

      No, it's not. I have never once heard a theist state this in my life, and naturally enough, since it's a horrible argument. It have heard it used repeatedly and exclusively by atheists, as an empty claim of "what theists say". Well, we don't. I suppose if you simply make up our position, and argue against the resultant Straw Man, you're likely to be successful arguing with yourself. But let's take it down to the basics. That we know or don't know more causal attributes of an event says -nothing- about whether God is the original cause. No more than saying that if we describe nuclear fission in detail, that means President Truman didn't order the bombing of Nagasaki. It's an irrational claim, if made by a theist or an atheist, and I challenge you to provide a single theist who has.

      The ball is in YOUR court on how to continue.

      Okay, I wait, you get deselected, I win. Or, from your stance, the best you can say is we both lose. Feel free to choose either. I know the answer.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    17. Re: Religion is a mental disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude....he's religious....you might as well hope for ISIS to give up on Allah.

      The religious are psychologically damaged. He can't even see it. It's not his fault but as his position is not based on reason it can't be reasoned with.

      You won't change that.

    18. Re: Religion is a mental disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now just refute something, idiot.

    19. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      You cannot verify or falsify a great deal of science, vast amounts of which is, nonetheless, peer-reviewed. I presume you then no papers regarding the various Interpretations of QM are peer-reviewed, since which is accurate cannot be empirically verified?

      You have a purely imaginary notion of science and most of the core attributes of it. Feel free to start with answering any of my first response, and show a basic understanding of what "evidence" apart from "proof" is, what QM agrees is possible, what a theory means, or... just anything. Failure to understand what "peer reviewed" means is simply an additional failure of your scientific non-knowledge.

      Just even basic, I mean the most basic level of coherent thought and baseline honesty allows it to be clear that because I say something is an analogy, I am not saying everything is an analogy. You see clearly how stupid that claim otherwise is, no? Yes.

      I have made no assertions of "proof", so try to avoid conflating "evidence" and "proof". Any thought you have following that is likewise irrational. Do we have "evidence" of aliens and Bigfoot? Indeed we do. Very poor evidence, and, as you well know, nothing for them remotely approximating a multiple-PhD authored, peer reviewed study as published in the Lancet. As -one- source of theistic evidence. People err and people lie, true. You have given no reason they would in this case. In no other case can you dismiss hundreds of eyewitness reports with a smarmy "people lie", either.

      It doesn't translate into our normal space... so, then, quantum computing is an impossible lie? There can be no macro-scale effects of quantum behavior? Do tell, how you know this. You can make a killing in the market short-selling these companies. You can spend the money in this universe that, according to the only viable position left to you, is -entirely- a macro scale effect of quantum behavior. Perhaps it doesn't exist, then?

      I have made no claim it happened in 6000 years, I am in the camp of theistic evolution. Again, point at whatever Straw Man you wish, your generalized dismissal of theism does not in any way logically follow. And, in fact, evolutionary evidence has shown such changes in far less than 6000 years, Peppered Moths happened in 50 years, according to mainline evolutionary theory. But if the topic is religion, oh, then no, that's an impossibly short timeframe.

      Is there a topic somewhere you can address honestly or correctly?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    20. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not rare at all
      There are physical diseases, mental diseases, social diseases, a group is just a supper organism, social infections spread through information and communication, there are antigens and pathogens, memes are the most common infection vehicle or viral factor, some infections are positive, some negative, some mild, some acute
      Religion spread vertical in the family from parents to children and horizontally in the group horizontally from one member to another, the reason evolution doesn't root it off is because in most cases its a mild infection with some positive effects, it helps to strength the cohesiveness of the group, when the infection is acute the negative effects in the group overcame the positive ones, that's why those religious nut communities use strong control and no freedom, they need to prevent dissension because otherwise they would dissolve and die and there is no stronger drive in an organism than the drive to survive

    21. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think we can consider language the main factor in mental diseases, in social diseases information is the trick, one way to spread infections in human groups is through memes (some other animal super organisms use chemical signalling for instance, it probably would be interesting to find out if there is the chemical signal equivalent of a meme, and perhaps we could find also analogues in IT networks)

    22. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I remember how David Copperfield once made the Statue of Liberty disappear. Hundreds of people were witness to this spectacle. Does that mean that this is evidence for him to really make it disappear? Or were hundreds of people subjected to an illusion? They wouldn't even lie, they have seen it! They have been eye witnesses of it being gone. Hundreds of people. How many do you need for evidence to be credible? Does it depend on the reputation of the person, would it be more credible if I trick the mayor of New York into believing it?

      To have any scientific value, it would first and foremost have to be repeatable, falsifiable and make predictions that will come true without fail. Dependence on humans is simply not working because you introduce not only a random element but also use an instrument that isn't calibrated.

      Concerning quantum mechanics, I'm not a specialist in QM, but I'll try my best. There are a few effects in QM (like the aforementioned tunneling) that has only been observed in QM. Never in the classical mechanics. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in QM, it only means that obviously there are different effects working in QM than in CM. We, or at least I, don't know (yet) why this is the case. It is not an impossible lie, it is just something we need to work on to understand why it happens. What I know is two things. One, we have observed particles that should not be able to overcome obstacles due to a lack of energy accomplish this in QM, and we have never observed objects that have insufficient energy to overcome obstacles do this in CM. What that's possible in QM, we'll find out. Maybe someone already knows, I don't know.

      You should also note that the degrees or reputation of someone has no influence on the validity of his claim. Whether Stephen Hawking or I make a claim about the inner workings of a black hole is insignificant when it comes to the consideration of the evidence presented. We'd both have to present the same compelling evidence to give our hypothesis merit. In practice, it's likely that any crackpot idea I offer would be laughed off, mostly because he has shown that he knows a thing or two about those things. In the end, though, his title means jack when it comes to providing evidence. Claims without evidence are dismissed without examination. Regardless of who made it.

      And yes, some organisms can evolve in less than 6000 years. Not snakes, though. We're not talking about an organism that has a generation cycle of a few minutes like a bacterium!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      To have any scientific value, it would first and foremost have to be repeatable, falsifiable and make predictions that will come true without fail.

      This is flatly untrue. Stop misrepresenting and damaging science.

      There is, like it or not, a great deal that is in the scope of science that is not directly testable. QM Interpretations, for one. Most any anthropological conclusion, as the circumstances are not replicable. Domains where results are, and can only be, statistical, and not "every time", such as sociology. I know you want a personal definition of science that just happens to match precisely what you need it to, to feel you can exclude theism. If you wish to simply be wrong about science, feel free. Don't damage others' understanding, however.

      Logical Positivism has thoroughly addressed this, running aground decades ago with a very systematic attempt to frame science, and reality, in the context of notions like "everything is falsifiable, or else wrong, or at minimum unsupportable". It was an utter failure, and you repeating this course (along with your favorite atheist thought-leaders) will likewise result in failure. That battle is over. "Is Beethoven a better composer than Mozart, or vice-versa?" Frame that scientifically, and answer it. Or, recognize this along with a vast number of domains you encounter every day, is outside of the scope of science. This is why I find it difficult to credit you with honesty--it is literally impossible that you apply the same criteria to religion as you do to your other thoughts every single day. You are attempting to make science synonymous with epistemology. It is not.

      Never in the classical mechanics.

      See, here is the issue. You make claims representing science that neither science would accept, nor are even logically coherent. How do you know this? Psychic powers? You see, presumably you consider me someone rhetorically applying theological assumptions to science--that I'm saying such things as "a theory means a theory" because I'm attempting to weaken some assertion. No, in fact, this is derived entirely from my secular science education. If someone stood up in the classroom and announced, "we shouldn't be calling these 'theories', we should be calling them 'facts'"... they would have been laughed out of the room, and not for theological reasons, but because this violates and misrepresents the basic nature of science. We explicitly -do not know- what observations will be made in the future, or new observations regarding the distant past, and to claim otherwise is to introduce -psychic assertions- into the core of science. Yet, this is precisely what Dawkins, Hitchens, Nye, Tyson, and the rest of their crowd do on a regular basis, for political and philosophical, not scientific, reasons. You can with the smallest effort find statements by all of the above which are based on untestable inference, not science. So, agreed, first thing is the baseline of what constitutes "evidence", and what constitutes "science".

      Your current notions of both, are simply wrong. Testability is a scientific positive. Falsifiability is a positive. However, these do -not- scope science. Logical inference from data and tested knowns are also validly in the domain of science, and to deny this would be to chop away so much of science it would be unrecognizable. As well as stopping future science at the root, since formulation of a hypothesis -always- precedes formulating a test for it, by definition. You are suggesting "science" may not include its own established methods--which absolutely include a scientist thinking something is likely true based on inferential assumptions of his knowledge domain, -before- a test can be performed or can even be defined. That's the reality. "Science" is indeed happening there, even when it isn't testable, and that interim period can last decades. Still science.

      As for the 6000 years, you'll have to provide some basis for saying snakes could not evolve another characteri

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    24. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, reproducibility is one of the corner stones of the scientific method. Basically whether you consider this true or not means jack shit. If you cannot reproduce it, if it doesn't offer any test that allows me to reproduce or falsify your findings, don't expect me to call whatever you do scientific.

      And don't make it dependent on me, it's basically how science works.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

      Well, your link. A "principle" is not an absolute requirement, and scientific method is a -subset- of science.

      Read down in your own link for cases of domains that are definitely considered science that currently have reproducibility issues. Still science.

      Or, note any of my previous examples that are definitely science without entirely reproducible propositions.

      Or, well, get a clue. I feel comfortable saying that since you'll have no choice. As you encounter actual science as actually practiced, no other result can happen.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    26. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah, and a "theory" is just some bullshit some bozo dreamed up.

      When you learned terminology, we'll talk again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    27. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Empiric · · Score: 1

      No need. You've demonstrated your inability to address anything substantive about these topics, with the 30 or so points you've skipped over so far due to complete inability to respond.

      Your pithy little conclusion won't change the reality, reviewable by anyone. You don't know terminology, you don't know the theoretical structures involved, you understand neither the philosophy of science, nor science itself.

      You know that whatever it takes, your "science" must protect you from reality and the evidence within it you prefer to run from. Fortunately, you can't damage religion, and you can only damage science to a limited extent, before you get naturally deselected. Fair enough.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    28. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      The fact that you claim that hallucinations cannot be complex and cannot include other delusions besides the common "white light", is yet another data point that proves you have zero understanding of neuroscience.

      Funny, isn't it, how these supposed "near-death-experiences" of believers in other religions are consistent with their religion, not Christianity. Oh, but knowing about that inconvenient fact would mean you would have had to have read and understood more on this topic than just one logically laughable article.

      Bleat on, deluded theist, bleat on. I've heard it all a hundred times before.

      But I've spent enough time feeding this particular troll. So long and thanks for all the laughs.

    29. Re:Religion is a mental disorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I claim no more understanding of neuroscience than my citation, as presented by multiple PhD's and published in the Lancet, making your relative qualifications to speak on the matter as random internet guy absurd.

      It might be funny, if it were the case, but it is not. View the statistics given. Those experiences with religious import cut across initial religious belief--though really, you know as well, that doesn't explain why -these particular- hallucinations would occur, rather than sheer hallucinatory randomness of a dying brain. Nor does it alter the fact, that insofar as different religions have broad parallel concepts, these experiences are, as noted, then evidence for -all- of them. Which would then be more plausible, and their areas of conceptual compatibility, would require further inquiry from other lines of evidence and argument. And here, you indeed, have "zero understanding".

      You don't give even the mostly basic presentation of intellectual honesty. "Logically laughable article"? Write the Lancet. Inform them how their peer-reviewed PhD's are laughable, and you are not. Fail while you're at it to recognize this is hardly the only study on the phenomenon, either.

      Wishful, lying fantasy logic. Ah, well, feel free. As you wish, die.

  42. Re:I once met a guy who would not let his kids go by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    But worshiping people nailed to crosses that die and respawn after 3 days is fine.

    Yeah, I know that kind of loony.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  43. Great minds by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


    I banned Pokemon because I thought it was shit.

    I didn't even need to reach into the ether and draw parallels with it supposedly promoting Zionism.

    Fucking Pikachu, I somehow knew he was up to no good but now I have proof?

    I think a review of Zionist promoting things should be conducted so we can ban them all...although, I do wonder...

    If religious people in Saudi believe god created everything, who are they to say god does not prefer people choose to be pure rather than use the evil, Zionist promoting pokemon?

    Next step for Saudi, ban thinking. They already did all the thinking for you. Don't worry about it.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  44. nice try, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the part where this lady calls upon you to die?, by stoning? by beheading?

    What you clearly highlighted was a lady concerned with the influences of a cultural thing she does not understand upon her children. She's clearly been told a bunch of stuff by people she trusts/believes and is passing these warnings along to people who CHOOSE to listen to her. I do not agree with her, but so far she's more tame than your average Al Gore follower ranting about Global Warming (whoops! sorry, Climate Change) and demanding that everybiody obey climate edicts and that anybody who disagrees be silenced.

    Get back to me when there are Methodist extremists beheading people because they were heard singing a show tune, or Episcopal extremists crashing airliners full of innocent civilians into skyscrapers, or Buddhist extremists shouting "Nothing Matters!" as they detonate their suicide belts in shopping malls, or when community church extremists round-up all the little girls in town and spirit them away to be "converted" and then "married" to their soldiers leaving Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama and other obviously superior and intellectual experts to "#bringbackourgirls" as their most-effective response.

    Yup...all religions are obviously the same... to morons who cannot be bothered with facts or details.

  45. They should be embarrassed by Maritz · · Score: 1

    But they aren't. We truly are the only animal smart enough to believe in fairy tales.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  46. Um, that's NOT what the word means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Islam does NOT mean "peace". That faux-definition has been peddeled to unsuspecting western populations by their elite opinion makers for many years in support of the globalization projects they are all comitted to. They need their populations to not fear Muslims as part of theproject to erase all borders to the wealthy and powerful can move money and labor around the world as easily as possible so they can make themselves even richer.

    "Islam" actually means "Submission" and the leaders of that faith freely admit that when they link it with "peace" they mean that there will be globalpeace AFTER everybody on Earth submits to Islam and agrees to convert to Islam, or live under Muslims as second-class citizens with few rights, or die. Oh, and there are entire categories, particularly gays and atheists, who are not entitled to a choice - they MUST be killed.

  47. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    They must suck at trigonometry then.

  48. Masonry organization? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I believe the word you are looking for is "Masonic."

    I have no idea what this fatwa has with bricklaying.

  49. "Rarely find a card?" What are they smoking? by mysidia · · Score: 1

    You rarely find a card that does not contain such a star. It is associated with Judaism, ...."

    Pokemon is a video game.... there are no cards....

    Also, what is the deal with countries passing Anti-Semitic laws targeting to ban the practice of Judaism?

    There should be a global embargo against such countries, which have no respect for human rights....

  50. Re: Triangles have been around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    since early Egypt and much earlier.

    Christianity has got nothing to do with triangles, squares, other shapes or any other symbol except the cross.
    Even the cross was actually used by the Romans to punch people, and the Christians found it to be an good symbol for an anti-Roman movement.

    I have been in Saudi Arabia, and it has many buildings with triangles and masonic-like symbols...

    I would rate your comment as funny, not insightful.

  51. Here you go... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Informative

    21758

    The reasons stated for banning are, in this order: gambling, evolution, use of religious symbols of other religions ("six-pointed star of Judaism", "the cross", "angles and triangles - Masonry", "Symbols of the Shinto creed").

    So... the "Zionism-promoting" thing is invention and interpretation of Times of Israel, as neither Zionism nor Israel are mentioned in the fatwa.
    Other than that, the entire thing reads like any other religious edict of any religion - detached from reality, one leg in conspiracy theories and religious paranoia, other leg firmly cemented in mental issues.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Here you go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod the parent up and add the clarification to the summary, please!

  52. Re:I once met a guy who would not let his kids go by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    My GF was told that, possibly by one of her relatives. I gather from some stuff she'd said that some of them are religious loons.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  53. These are laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They sound more like a crazy man's forum rant

  54. Re: Triangles have been around by Andtalath · · Score: 1

    I found it quite funny that you wrote punch instead of punish =)

  55. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by Empiric · · Score: 1

    "When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"

    Prior art, by about 1800 years.

    Does sound more Darwinian than Lamarckian, though, true, and accurately capturing the eventual social controversy. Got to catch them all.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  56. Islam... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is just about as much fun as Catholicism.

  57. Mass shooters and Terrorist shooters- same effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So frequently one will attack people, saying that it is for Islam, but then everyone will say "it wasn't really, he's just insane".

    I think you have this backwards. If a Muslim guy kills half a dozen people, the media headlines say "Terrorist Attack"! If a random white guy kills half a dozen people, the media story says "Another mass shooting by an insane guy." But the number of "insane guys" who do mass shootings outnumbers the number of Muslim guys-- thousands of killings by ordinary Americans, versus a handful by Muslims..
    (source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... )

    A harder question is: why are Americans so terrorized, when the actual threat is trivial? http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2...

  58. Moral Panic by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    Do you not remember the moral panic in the 1980's over Dungeons and Dragons? Or the Judas Priest subliminal message trial?

    All society's suffer from this sort of insanity from time to time.

  59. WW3 will cleanse the world of such tyranny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WW3 will cleanse the world of such tyranny. We may not live to see it but given human nature it is not a question of if but when will happen.

  60. Re:"Rarely find a card?" What are they smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Pokémon franchise also has a huge trading card game that has been around since 1996. The 2001 fatwa would have included that form of the game.

  61. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by avandesande · · Score: 1

    The underpinnings of your religion must be pretty weak if it is threatened by such minor contrivances.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  62. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    And HEY, look at that "swoosh" icon! Are they promoting the wearing of athletic shoes as well?

  63. Re:"Rarely find a card?" What are they smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pokemon collectable card game is the second most popular ccg in the world (after Magic). You can pick up pokemon cards at Target, K-mart, Walmart, or if you prefer ordering online, Amazon will sell them to you. They aren't exactly hard to find...

  64. Follow the Money by stoicio · · Score: 1

    When the world stops trading goods with them. (ie: buying oil)
    The only reason these countries have leadership who adhere to this nonsense is they use it to control their personal economic position in society. Run them out of financial capital and the incentive for philosophical control dries up.

  65. Thank you by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    "Haven't you noticed, muslims are often completely insane?"

    Fuck off. There is nothing wrong with Muslims or Islam you racist piece of shit.

    If someone is committing a terrorist act claiming that they are doing it because they are a Muslim or in the name of Islam it is bullshit. Islam is peaceful. They are either lying about being muslim/islamic or they are a Zionist stooge.

    Thank you, I had forgotten the "they blame everything on the Zionists" to add to the list of muslim insanities. You obviously suffer from a lot of them

  66. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you are vastly understating the significance of triangle and cross symbolism.

    Then again, not nearly so much as the Saudis. :P

  67. Re:I once met a guy who would not let his kids go by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    My crazy catholic aunt did this. Harry Potter = Witchcraft and is bad. Narnia = good because christian allegory. Lord of the Rings = good because childhood memories of reading the books. D&D = Super Bad Witchcraft Evil. It still makes my head hurt to this day.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  68. Ah, Saudi Arabian Clerics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't ever change!

    Our expectations of you are zero and you never fail to meet that standard. Slow Clap!

  69. Darwin? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    Maybe it encourages belief in somebody's theory of evolution, but it sure as shit isn't Darwin's.

  70. warn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The timesofisrael where the original story appears has delivered malware in the past: https://blog.malwarebytes.com/threat-analysis/2014/09/malvertising-hits-the-times-of-israel-newspaper/

    I just followed the link to that pokemon ban story, FF locked up, a dos window flashed momentarily on my second screen, I tried to C_A_D but nothing happened, so I turned off my machine unplugged my eth cable, and restarted, OS (Win 10 Pro) very slow to load, and while tray icons were loading, I saw one I had never seen before appear and then disappear. Yes this just happened, and it really sucks, 'cause I'm at work with a about 4000 other machines in the domain.

    warn.

  71. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

    And who ban words with the letter 'X' in them because the X resembles a cross.

    Shouldn't they be banning words with the letter "t" then? Or are they those obnoxious people that always use all caps?

  72. Re:Huge Mischaracterization - Not promoting Darwan by thoromyr · · Score: 1

    got a citation for any of this? I'm just curious, because this is the first I've heard this particular myth.

    Out of curiosity, could you point out which Arab letter is an 'X'? (You *do* realize, I trust, that Arabic uses its own script?)

  73. Re: Saudi Arabia is the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read this and I'm just shaking my head at how incredibly ludicrous every word in that statement was.

    If it weren't for the fact that millions of people live under the oppression of this sort of thinking, it would actually be funny.

    When will these people finally join the 21st century and stop basing their entire lives around this bullshit?

    Which is the point of this kind of PR... the Saudis are brilliant at doing things like diverting attention to things like how women aren't allowed to drive or a pokemon ban which divert attention from the fact that Saudi Arabia is a brutal and repressive totalitarian Islamic regime that represses every type of freedom the West holds dear, tortures people, beheads people, invades neighboring countries to install and maintain governments that repress their people and also pays to export and support a medieval form of Islam that has directly led to the ideology that supports terrorist attacks in Western countries.

    Saudi Arabia is undermining Liberty and democracy at every turn and US politicians are fine with it as long as they keep sending the checks.

  74. trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok, i give in. if he promises to nuke the saudis in the first 1 minute of his term, ill vote for him. but i need to see his tiny hands NOT crossing their fingers.

  75. Re:I once met a guy who would not let his kids go by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's pretty nutz, but this person was a different sort of loony.

  76. The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just trying to protect the fact that Mohammed is really......A POKEMON