Bangladesh Blocks Facebook Over Muhammad Cartoons 562
lbalbalba writes with a BBC story about Bangladesh following Pakistan in censoring Facebook. "Bangladesh has blocked access to Facebook after satirical images of the prophet Muhammad and the country's leaders were uploaded. One man has been arrested and charged with 'spreading malice and insulting the country's leaders' with the images. Officials said the ban was temporary and access to the site would be restored once the images were removed. It comes after Pakistan invoked a similar ban over 'blasphemous content.' ... Thousands of people joined anti-Facebook protests in Bangladesh on Friday demanding the site be blocked over the contest. A telecomm regulator there said, "Facebook will be re-opened once we erase the pages that contain the obnoxious images." And how do they propose to do that?
Here's a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's totally unplug all backwards theocracies from the internet.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Informative)
Ever notice how close the word empathy is to pathetic?
It's like they share a common root. Like passage and impasse.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. They both stem from the Greek "pathos", which means, roughly, emotional suffering in response to something.
So... I guess I don't see your point.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a bad idea as internet access has a serious western influence on these countries, for better or for worse.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bad idea as internet access has a serious western influence on these countries, for better or for worse.
Every time I see a story like this it makes me want to find the part of my state with the highest Islamic population and then decorate the streets so they cannot walk ten feet without seeing a cartoon making fun of Mohammed. It would be a way to say "welcome to the ridicule and derision Christians and Jews and others are expected to put up with." Psychologists call this "systematic desensitization" when it's used for phobias and other irational fears. In the case of Islam everyone would be better off for it. It would absolutely not be an attack against Islam. It would merely establish parity between Islam and all other major religions.
It's time for Islam to learn what Christianity learned hundreds of years ago. Not everyone is going to adhere to your religion and fighting crusades, jihads, or holding inquisitions won't change that and is not the correct solution. All that does is convince every non-adherant that you're really a bunch of barbarians who use force because you don't actually believe in your faith or the power of its message. If your goal is to spread your religion, this is extremely counter-productive and will produce unyielding resistance to it. Realistically, every time an Islamic terrorist makes something go "ka-boom" do you think the rest of us say "wow, that Islam sure has some great points, I better convert today!" or do you think we say "yup, what a bunch of primitive savages." It does not help that the more moderate Islamic leaders rarely or never condemn the murderous actions of their extremist brethren. It's as though they are afraid to, or they agree with the extremists, and either case means that the extremist minority gets to dictate the entire course of Islam. Again, that's not a selling point if you want to win converts.
For all religious people, Islamic or not, here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will. If others do things that you consider blasphemous, say a quiet prayer for them in your own privacy wishing that they come to understand things as you do. If they don't, consider it the will of an all-knowing and all-powerful God and leave those people the hell alone. If they do, celebrate that your prayers had an effect. I know that has the serious drawback of not giving you an excuse to force others to behave as you think they should, but you can get over that.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will.
That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter. The other 10% are just annoying as hell, but are not likely to stone you or blow themselves up. Muslim, however, seem to be a different thing altogether.
If you think something is a sin, (alcohol, for instance) why can't Muslims simply choose to not drink alcohol and leave everyone else alone? The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim. Parts of the Koran specifically say to convert or kill infidels, although other parts say to respect other's beliefs and leave them alone. While most would likely prefer to convert the infidels with words, and only a minority with force, the problem is that they feel they must convert us at all. The idea of "live and let live" just isn't in their vocabulary.
It is going to take something big to see change or a large amount of time, and frankly, I don't think the rest of the world is going to be patient enough to allow a large amount of time.
They'll just ban you rather than stone you. (Score:5, Insightful)
here's a novel concept: practice your religion as you see fit to the extent that you don't coerce others against their will.
That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter. The other 10% are just annoying as hell, but are not likely to stone you or blow themselves up. Muslim, however, seem to be a different thing altogether.
If you think something is a sin, (alcohol, for instance) why can't Muslims simply choose to not drink alcohol and leave everyone else alone? The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim. Parts of the Koran specifically say to convert or kill infidels, although other parts say to respect other's beliefs and leave them alone. While most would likely prefer to convert the infidels with words, and only a minority with force, the problem is that they feel they must convert us at all. The idea of "live and let live" just isn't in their vocabulary.
It is going to take something big to see change or a large amount of time, and frankly, I don't think the rest of the world is going to be patient enough to allow a large amount of time.
The Christian right is behind the banning of homosexuality. Look it up, Sodomy was a crime. Adultery was a crime. They used the law to make being anything but Christian illegal.
So no you cannot say these people aren't still trying. They want to ban abortion and gay marriage now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So no you cannot say these people aren't still trying.
That is the 10% I spoke of, who are mainly annoying. Meanwhile, gay marriage (and military service) is slowly moving forward, fewer people in the US are christian than ever, sodomy laws were held to be unconstitutional, etc. I didn't say it was paradise, but at least we are moving in the right direction with a little momentum and the majority of Jews and Christians are not trying to convert us all.
Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversion is the least of our issues. I quite frankly have no problems with it and see it as an acceptable behavior in society. How can we say it is any different than the man on a soap box in the park telling us about the end times or the Great Squirrel Conspiracy (that's true btw)? As long as it is conducted in public, on public property, between consenting adults the behavior is non-threatening.
What *is* the problem is punishment . When people use interpretations of their religion to justify vigilante actions against you, outside of society's laws, to punish you for transgressions against their religion, that is extremely concerning. Equally concerning, are the attempts to subvert and pervert the laws of society through so-called political activism to enact non-secular laws in accordance with their religion.
Thankfully, America and Europe has largely evolved past such behaviors (like the Crusades and the Inquisition), and the people who insist on performing or advocating such actions are marginalized and punished according to the law when they act inappropriately. Society does not condone or encourage *any* of their behavior whatsoever.
However, America and Europe have enjoyed a period of peace of prosperity that quite frankly has allowed us the luxury of evolving to this state in the first place.
The Middle East has been without such an environment for a very long long time and is unarguably in the grips of a Dark Age. Groups and people that should be marginalized and punished for their actions are being taken seriously, they are getting their laws enacted, and are proceeding with a culture of punishment of *anybody* that offends their religious sensibilities. Intolerance and violence is breeding more intolerance and violence.
I don't know what the solution is, but as long as angry violent men control the Middle East we are going to continue experiencing the anguish they bring upon the rest of the world.
The problem was never Islam or the words of the Quaran. Every other religious text has passages in it, often misconstrued due to a lack of anthropological sophistication required to understand their meanings in their time, but the vast majority of other people practice these religions in the moderation required to integrate into society.
That's the problem with Islam; The way it is practiced. No moderation and in many situations merely a framework of justifications for violence that these men are predisposed to anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know what the solution is
Education. Lots of it, at least two generations worth of education.
I grew up in middle east and a local joke goes like this,
A sheikh's driver brings his 18 year old son to his Shiekh
Driver: Can you get my son a good job.
Sheikh: Has he done some kind of formal education?
Driver: No, not really, actually he never went to school
Sheikh: Is he smart/talented
Driver: Yes he is very smart
Shiekh: Hmmmm.. that doesn't work out, cause if he wasn't smart, he would be perfect for the local mosque priest.
Religious moderation is dishonest (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem was never Islam or the words of the Quaran. Every other religious text has passages in it, often misconstrued due to a lack of anthropological sophistication required to understand their meanings in their time, but the vast majority of other people practice these religions in the moderation required to integrate into society.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I've always strongly disliked this idea of religious moderation.
And before I start off on this, let me be perfectly clear: I am vehemently opposed to religious fundamentalists of any sort.
But religious moderation has always struck me as intellectually and (if your morals are religiously-grounded) morally dishonest. Saying that some book is the holy word of the God you claim to follow, and then ignoring or interpreting away vast swaths of it so that you can belong to that reli
Re:They'll just ban you rather than stone you. (Score:4, Interesting)
..."marriage" is a sacred institution, meaning it is of religious value only.
Hello there -- ever actually been married? You really should try it sometime. You might learn something.
"Religious value" has very little to do with it -- a marriage is a contract, with legally binding economic and other consequences, such as:
-You agree to share your home and property/assets, and you may (depending on the jurisdiction) become liable for any debts your spouse incurs.
-You agree that any children born or adopted into your household are your joint responsibility.
-Your spouse gains the right to make medical and other decisions on your behalf, should you become incapacitated.
-Your spouse gains the right to inherit your benefits, such as pensions and insurance payouts.
-And so on.
(In many places, you don't necessarily have to participate in a ceremony, and it might be called something like "common-law marriage", "cohabitation", "de facto relationship", etc. In Sweden, it's called samboförhållande [wikipedia.org] or "sambo" for short -- which has absolutely nothing to do with race, but is rather a contraction of samboende, meaning "same dwelling". But in all such cases, the intent and effects are generally the same as with "marriage".)
These are the sorts of practical issues that gays and others prohibited from marrying are complaining about: social and legal recognition as a unit.
Such a unit is sometimes referred to in the vernacular as a family.
This has absolutely nothing to do with an (in)ability to conform to the dicta of some Imaginary Dude Upstairs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because "marriage" is a sacred institution, meaning it is of religious value only.
Atheists get married too. Marriage is a legally binding social contract. It is a contract pledging to share everything, good and bad, and often to create offspring with each other only. While religion adds a dimension to marriage for those who participate, it is not the source of, nor the reason for two people to get married.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because "marriage" is a sacred institution
Completely untrue. The history of "marriage" clearly shows it existed long before religion become entangled. The simple truth is, the ring which women fawn all over is actually buying them like a horse. That's the standard. That's why engagement rings are typically of value. If you deflower your horse - I mean women - either before or after marriage, then the ring is hers to keep as compensation for his loss of market value. Nothing says love like, "with this ring, I own you bitch!" And that's why the actua
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact it wasn't that long ago we were dragging ourselves into world war over some misguided ideas about patriotism and t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The answer, of course, is that it appears the majority thinks everyone must become Muslim.
The real answer for such contradictions is because Islam is learning an incorrect translation of the Qu'ran. That's also why various bits don't make any sense at all and why other parts contradict each other.
In the valid translation, Islamic martyrs are to be provided 72 grapes - not virgins. The basic tenets of faith appear to be correct but there are huge and never ending errors which permeates all facets of what most of the world calls the Qu'ran. And oddly enough, it explains why every forth or firth (s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm certainly not a scholar when it comes to the Koran, but I have read it more than once.
""Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)"
"Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers" "Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I don't care if it is in the Qu'ran or not. The matter of the fact is that even self-proclaimed moderate Muslims in the West, when questioned, admit that death is the right and proper punishment for apostasy. So that interpretation is mainstream.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How do you explain these verses, then. Just claim they are "mistranslated" - without offering any "accurate" translation that disputes the meaning?
Your post is a lot of bullshit.
The translation of Quran 5:18 is:
(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and His beloved." say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men He hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"
I won't bother correcting the rest of your worthless comment.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, here's an interesting article [wordsandwar.com] on the subject... and here's some choice selections:
“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure” (Koran 61:4)
“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them [an infidel]. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (Koran 5:51)
“When ye meet the unbelievers smite at their necks” (Koran 47:4)
I guess you're right. Those are clearly all sentence fragments. The rest of that last sentence will obviously be "smite at their necks... with explanatory pamphlets, so that they are at eye level and clearly readable!"
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Informative)
When ye meet the unbelievers smite at their necks” (Koran 47:4)
Here's the whole translation of Quran 47:4:
" Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (Is the time for) either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) In order to test you, some with others. but those who are slain In the way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."
- Yusuf Ali translation (emphasis mine).
The key phrases that you conveniently omit was, "until the war lays down its burdens." As you can see, the phrase deals with conduct during a war. It's normal to kill people in a war, is it not? The phrases clearly tells us to stop killing once the war stops.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Just for the record, some of us Westerners find Christians, Jews and Muslims all pretty annoying. Not all of us are Christians. 20% openly say they are not, many who say they are have never gone to church, thus they are on paper only.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record: as a non-Christian (in the 'organized religion' sense), non-Jewish believer-in-god, I sure find atheists annoying as hell. These guys need to shut the hell up and stop being so critical of every semi-religious/spiritual statement people make.
For the record: as an atheist who doesn't go around criticizing religion, I sure find people who believe all atheists are Richard-Dawkins-wannabes annoying as hell. You people turned atheism into a dirty word. So much so that most atheists just call themselves agnostic to avoid being confused with an anti-theist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep your/their religious statements off my front porch and I will stfu. ESPECIALLY on my weekend mornings!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only an idiot like you would consider someone/thing above criticism. Only an idiot like you would defend a thousands of years old fairy tail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter.
Hah, that's a bit of an overestimate. Gay marriage legislation anyone?
I guess you would prefer the Muslim government option, where they don't have gay people at all?
They never learned (Score:5, Interesting)
That never happened. Christianity never learned anything, in fact they lost control as a result of not learning and adapting. They were thrown out of governments for good and lost the power to enforce their ways on the rest of us. Give Christianity back the power they had a in the dark ages and in a decade or two "peaceful" and "tolerant" Christians will be burning heathens on crosses in the name of their lord. If you have any doubts about that keep in mind how with the tiny bit of power left in hands of Vatican they systematically and on a global scale sexually abuse innocent children, silence the victims, protect the culprits and still consider themselves righteous. Then imagine what would happen if church had unlimited powers
The reason there are relatively few terrorist Christian militias or individual Christian [wikipedia.org] terrorists [wikipedia.org] is fear of harsh repercussions, specifically prosecution by the state. Bring back church to the state and their fears will vanish, then you'll see how hurting Christians' feelings, including you and I's innocent jokes about Jesus would result in "bodily harm".
tldr; It is Islamic states (or generally religion+state) that are the problem, not Islam per se. For more proof, I was in Iran during the original cartoon controversy. Not a single person knew or cared about the cartoons until state media started blasting them. Not a single grassroots protest happened, not a single gathering, until government sponsored protests (which most people have to attend) started.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
. Not everyone is going to adhere to your religion and fighting crusades, jihads, or holding inquisitions won't change that and is not the correct solution.
And if they (Muslims) win their jihads?
HINT: the world's Islamic population is increasing substantially, and not solely through birth. Jihad is alive and well in many (most) parts of the world. Social subversion goes a long way towards reaching one's goals when the status quo is one of accepting others' beliefs: it doesn't take much pressure to flip the coin.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This would require fundamentalist Islam to move past the 12th century, which they stubbornly refuse to do. Its sad how Islamic nations once lead the world in innovation and creative thought and then went into a Dark Ages which they have yet to emerge from. When will Islam have their Renaissance?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, its not just Muslims: I live in a country where you can go to jail for insulting the Buddha.
Its not just religions either: lots of countries have laws against insulting the flag or president, or whatever.
The basic conflict is over a "right not to be offended" vs a right to free speech. Unfortunately things seem to be drifting (in the West as well) towards peace is more important: we can all have a "harmonious society".
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Informative)
There have only been three racial lynchings in the US since 1968 and what, one gay lynching?
So really don't expect a lynching in the US ever.
Lynchings are more common in the Palestinian Authority with hate crimes on homosexuals and "collaborators" than Israel. In Jerusalem the danger is rock throwing groups for violators of the sabbath.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
In Jerusalem the danger is rock throwing groups for violators of the sabbath.
....aren't Jews not supposed to do any work, like, you know, picking up and throwing rocks, on the Sabbath?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
....aren't Jews not supposed to do any work, like, you know, picking up and throwing rocks, on the Sabbath?
Ah, but stoning is ok, because it falls under the category of "god's work".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Informative)
According to this [findarticles.com] over 50 LBGT's under the age of 30 have been killed in the USA between 1997 and 2007.
Don't think we're all one happy family yet. Prejudice still exists in America.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Only 50? I find that shocking. It would mean that LGBTs are vastly underrepresented in cases of murder than the general population. I think we should all do our duty and go out and kill on LGBT person today, to help tip the scales back to average.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Funny)
I think we should all do our duty and go out and kill on LGBT person today, to help tip the scales back to average
Why is this modded funny?
The GP's link indicated that "more than 50 young people aged 30 and under were murdered violently by assailants who targeted them because they did not fit stereotypes for masculinity or femininity... [LGBT is] a unique vulnerability at the intersection of age, race, and gender nonconformity that makes a fatal assault exponentially more likely."
Parent post pretends that "only 50" LGBT people were murdered in the past 10 years. That's not at all what the link suggested. 50 people were targeted and murdered because of their identity. The parent post actually advocates (sarcastically*) targeting and murdering more LGBT people because "only 50" murders is not enough.
Whats funny about that?
* I assume the parent was just being extreme for the ironic humor. whatever. I'm not upset at the parent - I'm upset at the mods for affirmatively recommending the post as funny.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Google says: Information No results found for "lynchings due to religion".
errr what google did you query ?? (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=lynchings+due+to+religion&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=lynchings+due+to+religion&gs_rfai=CEE2SowcDTJjdFY3CNvmm1NwHAAAAqgQFT9DdSUY&fp=3ef5d51874c14a12 [google.com]
Althought I do have to admit my google did not "say" anything about the topic either, but rather printed some text at the top of the page. I suppose you could have been using a text reader and querying 'some other google'
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
TL;DR: We aren't the students picking on the weird kid, we are the students uniting against a bully who wants to do things his way.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The main point is that you don't have a right not to be offended in a free country. If someone offends you - feel free to offend them back, or you know - consider being the bigger person and exposing the other as petty. I might even support you for it. However, threaten violence and all free people ought to align against you.
And that is what this is about. This is not about causing offence for fun, its about taking back a boundary which has been slowly eroded by extremist elements among Muslims (and rather shamefully supported by the mainstream) who have declared that drawing images of Muhammad is punishable by death. They have backed this up with murder. As we saw with the south park debacle, some in the west have caved. We are here to defend our freedom and defy those who would threaten us into submission.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
But religious freedom is a human right. They have a taboo and it involves images of Muhammad. Out of respect for the peaceful Muslims who aren't violent it's beneficial to respect Islam.
Freedom of religion is a human right, but respect of your religion is not. As an atheist, I can tell you that much of what is said by preachers in the street is disrespectful of atheists. I find the belief that I will be tortured for all eternity very disrespectful. But I don't demand them to respect me, just like Catholics cannot demand I respect their holy crackers. Neither can Muslims demand that the image of Muhammad be sacrosanct. This is just how it works is a free society.
In a multicultural society, there is good reason to behave respectfully to beliefs you do not share. But when such things are backed up with violence, then it crosses a line, and this is about making it very clear that such things will not be tolerated.
It's not like the majority of Muslims are violent so why blame the entire religion
Nobody is blaming the entire religion. Put it this way - if some atheists beheaded someone for saying "atheism is crap" or something similar - I would be the first to hold this banner. I would look down on anyone who felt it was more important to preserve "respect for atheism", then to reprint or otherwise display such as statement. In fact I would feel that this very act was doing more for this cause. Otherwise there is something very wrong with your priorities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Not if they're going to block anything that might offend their backward beliefs. And it's not a "western" influence that the internet brings, but an influence that is dangerous for any society, East or West, that seeks to maintain control over the population. At least until corporations have locked down the last dingy corner of the Internet, which might be sooner than you think.
But let's face it: backward religious beliefs that exploit human desire for meaning are poisoning societies everywhere. Not that mysticism or faith in the supernatural are themselves poisonous, but the minute such beliefs become organized, they are co-opted by people who would pervert them for political purposes.
Pictures of Mohamed? The leaders of Bangladesh are happy enough to use the Internet to fuel their explosion in high-tech industries and end-user support facilities, but they believe they can keep out anything that's "offensive" to their culture. Little do they know that they're way too late. I'm willing to bet that the first thing a Bangladeshi teenager does when first encountering the Internet is to look up pictures of Mohamed. Right after they look up 2 girls, 1 cup and Hentai.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No need. They are unplugging themselves.
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
I find your lack of faith.... disturbing!
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Here's a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ever heard the terms "Islamic republic" and "Islamic democracy"?
They aren't quite the same as the mockery that is communist "people's republic". They are true republics and true democracies - democracies, in which the mob chants, "kill the apostate!" [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mockery is the best response to religion. Let them unplug themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like Kansas and Texas?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not belief in God and magic that's the problem.
It's religion, which, when you come right down to it, has less to do with God and Magic than it does with power and control.
Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance (Score:4, Funny)
"global warming" is a religion, too.
I pray to global warming so that my mommy and daddy dont get a divorce.
Re:that would doom an entire people to ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
Considering last year was the warmest year since temperatures have been recorded, I'd say that if "global warming" is a religion, then it has a better record of prophecy than any other major religion on Earth.
Win-Win situation... (Score:5, Funny)
Either a billion people too immature to handle cartoons are kept off the Internet forever, or every Facebook server on the planet is vaporized in a hail of fast neutrons.
Call me cynical, but either way, the world ends up a better place.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
*Ahem* and when that happens, how do you propose I like things and stalk my classmates? I'm not going back to the Stone Age of actually liking things and using Classmates.com
Idiots (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the ban is to try and force non-muslims to accept Muslim rules.
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
An interesting thought experiment would be to imagine that Muslims must take an oath to renounce Islam(not having to choose another religion, just renouncing Islam) upon immigration to generic, prosperous Western countries. How many would give up a safe and comfortable lifestyle and a good education, for themselves and their families, for the sake of religious self-righteousness?
Another principle-related thought experiment: Would the number of abortions increase if men were not obligated to pay child support?
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which makes islam a cult, rather than a religion. Admittedly the world's largest cult, but a cult none the less.
Wait, I thought the world's biggest cult was catholicism?
Anyway, as someone else once said:
"I don't get the point of religious conflict. Its just like two dudes fighting over who has the best imaginary friend"
Take an anthropology class. (Score:3, Insightful)
GP is a Troll, so don't mistake this for advocating his point of view.
I'm interested in the idea that you think there are cultures out there in the world that aren't organized around greed, selfishness, and making money. Where in the the world does such a thing exist? I'll grant you small, isolated communities - but any system large enough to have an economy at all revolves around greed and selfishness.
Many of the tribal cultures such as in Africa or the Native Americans had an economy based on sharing. It was basically a kind of socialism based around take what you need, and share the rest with the group. They also had sharing with other tribes according to gift giving rituals, very much like how we have Xmas rituals.
They did not have a concept of greed and this is one of the main reasons tribal cultures did not develop the level of technology and sophistication, or the kinds of weaponry. Greed is someth
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And that's the Religion of peace and understanding, everybody...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The point of the ban is to try and force non-muslims to accept Muslim rules."
Precisely. That is really the way most religions work.
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
It's scary how many people in Western countries think Muslims are beyond reproach though. I was in an IRC channel a few months back (don't ask me which, I sure as hell don't remember) and I was playing around with different screen names. While doing this, I found out that the names Jesus and God were banned, so a friend suggested I try Allah - that was allowed. After I change it to that, some Muslim starts foaming at the mouth about how he's going to hunt me down and kill me for "insulting" his god merely by making my screen name Allah (despite the fact that I didn't say a single unkind or inappropriate thing while I had that name on). As you would expect, everyone in the room told him to STFU and asked him to stop being an irrational lunatic, right? Wrong, they vilified me and defended the Muslim threatening to kill someone just over a damn screen name.
The Muslim extremists have already won - politicians are too cowardly to stand up to them because they might lose a few votes and most citizens are afraid to stand up to them because they might be called "mean" or "racist".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, let me get this straight:
You used a religiously sensitive name that caused another person to be offended and react aggressively, and other people agreed that your religiously sensitive name was offensive.
In comparison, other religiously sensitive names, such as Jesus and God, were banned.
Therefore, "The Muslim extremists have already won."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Muslim extremists have already won - politicians are too cowardly to stand up to them because they might lose a few votes and most citizens are afraid to stand up to them because they might be called "mean" or "racist".
It's fairly obvious that it is a rather unstable situation, and it looks like the pendulum is already swinging [swissinfo.ch] the other way.
Which is unfortunate; I fear that, if PC police will keep the lid shut tight, when the thing finally explodes (and it will, mark my words), it won't just be anti-Islamic - it will also be plainly racist, and quite possibly warring fundamentalist Christian; and violent, with another Kristallnacht and lynchings on the streets. Which would be even worse.
I want (Score:5, Funny)
everything on the internet that does not agree with my religion removed from the internet.
Who will I start with...
I, for one, completely agree with Pakistan. (Score:5, Funny)
Wow for the first time ever the religious extremists in Pakistan and I completely agree - someone has simply got do delete Facebook.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is the new age of the internet. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is the new age of the internet. (Score:4, Interesting)
Naw.... I saw my first posting by a dumb ass moslem screaming about how we are all going to be killed in the great jihad blah blah blahdy blah blah back on usenet when the Internet was young and you could still have an arapnet domain.
This crap has been happening for centuries. Every time some poor bastard realizes that those fast moving lights in the sky were put there by us and that not one of their countries could do the same thing or when they saw the steam powered steel ships come into harbor and they realized that not one of their countries could... You get the picture. Contact with the west destroyed their image of themselves as a great culture so they have to kill us all.
Sad sick puppies.
Stonewolf
Response to the ban in Bangladesh (Score:5, Informative)
What is nice to see is that there has been a protest against the ban by students and professors
http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=162813&cid=2
Unfortunately, this probably doesn't make for as exciting news as yet-another-theocracy-bans-facebook. A search on Google News for "bangladesh facebook" doesn't even throw up this link, and I haven't yet seen any mention of these sensible, logical voices on BBC,CNN etc.
It's wrong to apply banning in 99% of cases. (Score:4, Insightful)
Banning burkas is wrong. Banning websites is wrong. Banning ideas, books, clothing, all of this is wrong. I don't think banning does anything other than irritate and piss people off who might have been peaceable before. If you know a group of people like to wear burkas and you ban it, you just pissed them off and it makes them feel like you just banned THEM. The same can be said if you have millions of people who smoke weed legally and suddenly it's banned. It's the same as if this website were banned.
It's wrong because it fans the flames of hatred against US policy for no real gain politically, culturally, diplomatically, militarily. This accomplishes what?
Start their own (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a proud American I find this outrageous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another proof by demonstration... (Score:4, Insightful)
that islam is having a very hard time dealing with the 16th century. I hate to image what will happen if it/they what ever, it actually comes into contact with the 21st century. Oh, yeah... that was what happened in 9/11/2001 and just a while ago in Times Square.
The question is which happens first? Either 1) these so called islamic "civizations" learn to accept basic concepts like "human rights" or 2) they finally become a real danger. By real danger I mean they actually set off a nuke in a western city, release a ton of nerve gas, set off a dirty bomb, start the black death 2.0, or do a bunch of little things that just really piss us off. Like say, killing the South Park guys.
If 1 happens first, then cool. Everyone gets to live. But if 2 happens, what then? Do we keep trying to bottle them up and worrying about whether it is safe to have lunch in the park today? Or, do we just start killing them? I think that is going to be a major test of *our* so called civilization.
My bet is that our great great grandchildren will be ashamed of what we do. But, I'm also betting that there are going to be very very few great great grandchildren who are raised as moslems.
IMHO, the belief in absolute truth is the greatest enemy of humanity. The belief in absolute truth is absolute evil.
Stonewolf
ALERT!!! 9,600,000+ images of Muhammad in Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted maybe half a million of those are picture of Muhammad Ali, but there are literally millions of images of Muhammad on the Internet...
Makes you wonder how you could possibly remove them all... Of course you cannot.
And the more noise made about it, the more images there will be.
Re: (Score:2)
A telecomm regulator there said "Facebook will be re-opened once we erase the pages that contain the obnoxious images." And how do they propose to do that?
If they have a great wall type firewall that everything goes through, they could filter the facebook traffic and replace the offending images with ones that had text reading "A fatwah is declared upon the creators of this disgraceful contest".
Good luck finding the original creators, unless just any scapegoat will do.
Also: BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT FREE SPEECH
Re: (Score:2)
I liked your first version better, it was more specific. B+ for the first, C- on the second for repetition.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Calling them primitives would be too kind
can we call them integrals?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Women oppressing primitives.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There are more Starbucks in Philadelphia [starbuckseverywhere.net] than all of Utah [starbuckseverywhere.net]. I think that is pretty telling.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually go to starbucks, but the absense of starbucks somewhere is still a pretty strong indicator of primitisim to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, until recently there were more people in Philadelphia than in all of Utah.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Similar to Apple's development strategy.
Re:This is religious intolerance. (Score:5, Insightful)
heya,
Well, actually no...haha...you're completely wrong.
As a Christian, I can tell you people make fun of us all the time. Heck, they've been doing it for around, what, 2000 years? And the Jews have probably suffered a lot longer. Thing is, every religion gets made fun of
I mean, seriously, has your head been under a sand. What do you think Raptor Jesus is? (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Raptor_Jesus) Or say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or how about all those bestselling books alleging Jesus was gay, or he had a family with kids, or some other ridiculous nonsense....
I actually find some of these funny, and a little comical (well, the FSM I think is actually clever/ironic, the Raptor Jesus meme is just a bit insipid/childish, but hey, it's the 4chan crowd, they're mostly 12-year olds kids).
You can either act like tantrum-throwing little kids, like some Muslims here are, or you can grow up and act like an adult, and shrug it off. It's not personal, they just don't believe the same things as you. And for a Christian, it just means they miss you on having God's awesome grace - so you should just pray for them, and be loving to them.
It's things like these that make Muslims look like backward primitives...*cue somebody declaring a fatwah against me*
Cheers,
Victor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or how about all those bestselling books alleging Jesus was gay, or he had a family with kids, or some other ridiculous nonsense....
No. Much more believable is that the son of the creator came down in the form of a man to get persecuted and killed which somehow saves all men from their sin (including original sin which they're at fault for even though they're born with it) and that in memory of this he comes down and inhabits a buscuit and some wine which magically become his body and blood.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or he had a family with kids, or some other ridiculous nonsense....
I honestly don't understand why that is classified as nonsense and even gets some people up in a tizzy (not you, others I've met). Is it only because it would mean the man had sex with someone?
Re:This is religious intolerance. (Score:5, Informative)
If we made a website declaring Jesus Christ was a homosexual, wouldn't this anger Christians in this country and don't you think that certain individuals would want the website banned?
For one, most of them really wouldn't be bothered to the point of calling for a ban, and you're not going to see Christian leaders calling for the death of the webmaster, even Pat Robertson isn't that crazy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guarantee if you made a website declaring Jesus Christ was homosexual the US government would not block access to the website for the entire country.
And as proof see that this isn't blocked by the government: http://www.jesusinlove.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] and there are not riots in the street.
Re:This is religious intolerance. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we made a website declaring Jesus Christ was a homosexual, wouldn't this anger Christians in this country and don't you think that certain individuals would want the website banned?
Given your example, I quickly searched Facebook to see if there was any results for "Jesus is gay". Lo and behold, there is a group with 200 people who like "Jesus is Gay" as well as an app which has a picture of Jesus open-mouth kissing Satan. I'm not someone who wants to throw the US in your face as the shining example of everything good and warm and fuzzy, but I am sure fucking glad this country isn't banning Facebook because of content such as mentioned above.
So lets not be hypocrites here, the majority of Americans support censorship for cultural reasons
I just find it hypocritical that people can switch from being for free speech in one instance but then when it's free speech that can apply to America suddenly we have to crack down and censor.
I seriously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. We have all kinds of nutjobs here in the US who want all kinds of shit taken down, banned, etc. Last I checked I could still pick up a copy of 'Howl' at the bookstore.
Are we for censorship or not?
I'm always against censorship. I don't see the hypocrisy that you're accusing vague swaths of Slashdot with for having regarding this issue. I am completely against governments limiting the materials available to their citizens based on ANYTHING, including religion, even if its the state religion, even if 99.99% of the population follows this religion.
Really bothers me that you're at +4 right now. Is everyone's brain dead this weekend?
Re:This is religious intolerance. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm certain that if Muslims made fun of Christians tightly held cultural and religious beliefs there would be outrage from Christians.
You must be new here. In threads on this site discussing Christianity it is almost guaranteed that someone will refer to the Christian God as the 'sky-daddy' and Jesus as the 'undead zombie Jew'. Christians and Jews are constantly ridiculed, we get over it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If they're quite liberal, then they won't care about the posting of Mohammad on Facebook.
It would be good to get some of that perspective, lest /. falls into some sort of Muslim-hating trap...
Oh no! Not the Muslim-hating trap! For once the site falls into that trap it will permanently be... uh... what happens again?
You might want to cut back on your rhetoric.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There being no God, religion must promptly devolve into idolatry even it pretends otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a metaphor, God and spirituality can be positive. However, here they are simply being used as instruments of politics and power, and as such, they are negative and dangerous.