First Aclu, Not Pat Robertson

[Mike AI]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021126...26-14786718.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021126-14786718.htm)

I think Pat Robertson is right on the money. Time to stop being politically correct - the koran teaches and demands muslims to kill non-beleivers. It is time we stop kidding outselves and the world it is a peaceful religion. I think he is right saying that many millions of Muslims, probably a majority of them are peaceful - but the Koran and religion dues advocate death an mayhem!

I also find it ironic that he is against all the new powers that the federal gov't is seizing, especially in the snooping issues. He is right on the money there too!

PD, Cal, I think even you guys can agree with Pat on these issues.

[Cal]

I think if I ever publicly agreed with Pat Robertson vessels in my eye and forehead would burst.

I have read the first few parts of the Quran myself, and while it's boring (I'm nowhere near a theologist) there were some parts I did agree with. In the translation I read it DID say that muslims should treat Christians and Jews as brethren since they are monotheists. It also had some good things to say about charity; I wouldn't give away a large porition of my income to the poor, but the Quran says you're supposed to if you are a muslim.

HOWEVER, after reading the first section (called 'the cow' in English, which some people say is one of the more important passages) I came away with the feeling that it was a very angry book. There is lots of talk about who you should kill, when you should kill them, and why you should kill them. The old testament is somewhat cut and dried, the new testament slightly less so, but the Quran is VERY open to interpretation in this sense. I don't see too many people debating whether or not it's okay to commit genocide based on Sodom and Gomorrah. The Quran talks a lot about infidels, killing, and sort of ruling with an iron fist. So it does not surprise me that many muslims misinterpret this, just like Christians interpret many bibilical issues in their own favor (gays, abortion, etc).

In short, I have read some of the Quran and from the 70 or so pages I got through I could plainly see why devout muslims are so violent. Does it surprise me that they're the most homicidal religion? No. Should we do something about it and help promote moderate muslim governments and religious leaders? Definitely. There are SO many muslims in this world if we don't keep this in check we could be in a lot of trouble.

As for the privacy thing, I was smiling sadly to myself watching GWB sign the biggest of the 'big government' bills probably to ever come out of a modern Repub administration, and he couldn't have been happier. There are a lot of things that worry me about the state of the union right now, but in true Jew style the biggest one is my own bank account. Let Allah and the SEC sort em out!

:D

C.

[sextoyking]

Shalom to that Cal :)

Mike,

yeh it would be hard for me to agree anytime with Pat, but in a wierd way I have always liked that guy.

Seen him many times on larry king, hannity / colmes and others. nice enough fellow for the far right.

What Cal said, man oh man, what bush signed today, looks good today and mabey tomorow, but might come back to bite us all.

Privacy issues I hold close to my heart......

God Bless America, A country where I belive it's almost Un American to not ever question your own goverment!

[-= JR =-]

i think about this quite a bit recently. is it fair to say that Islam is violent by quoting passages from it? or say it is violent by virtue of the fact that Muhammed was a warrior and Jesus was a pacifist.

the bible says we should kill homosexuals
we should all keep slaves etc etc.

would it be a fair comparison to say that more people have fought, killed, murdered or died for Islam than for Christianity. Islam was spread by violence and war. Wasn't Christianity? werent most religions?

These terrorists are mostly poor people from shitty lives that are bitter, angry and have no hope that are searching for some sort of meaning in thier lives... when they cant find it in life, they try to find it in death. I think they gravitate towards these extremist views because of who they are as people... not because those views exist and corrupt people.

the thing that bothers me is that terrorists say they are doing it in the name of Islam.. and Islamic leaders do VERY little to speak out against or condemn it or otherwise seperate that extremist view from Islam today.

[Edd]

You're bang on about the fact that Christianity has had its share of violence JR, and that literal translation has to be taken with a grain of salt in modern times. But I'll hand it to the Christians in that they have progressed along with the society and culture in which they thrive. Islam has NOT changed - not fundamentally as Christianity did. And while the Inquisition STILL exits in Rome (yes, it does), they just don't call it the Holy Office of the Inquisition anymore - it has a new face and a new job.

Islam is still Islam. It is still the destruction of the Infidel in the name of Allah to bring him (and yourself in the afterlife) glory. Talk to a Catholic priest about the Bible and he'll tell you the STORIES are parables about morality and life. Rabbis will say much the same. But Imams will state categorically the Koran IS the word of ALLAH. PERIOD.

[Almighty Colin]

Christianity is less central in western society than Islam is in middle-eastern society. The people that live in "Christian" countries are every bit as violent as those that live in the middle-east [ WWI, WWII, countless others ]. We just don't point out that they are the Christians because Christianity is not the unifying theme of western culture anymore.

Muslims.
Communists.
Nazis.
Japs.
Blacks.
Redcoats.

[Mike AI]

Well another important issue is Christianity is older, and has gone through thousands of years of change.... there was reformation, counter reformation, great schism, etc... Christianity has grown and become melow - it was Christian based countries that came up with whole ideas of seperation of church and State, democracy, free market economics, etc...

Islam is still stuck where Chritianity was in the middle ages.... and it will probably get worse because there does not appear to be any enlightenment period on the horizon for the largest groups of Muslima.... ( unless you count hellfire missles going up their asses frm drones)

The life for the average person in the middle east is pretty pathetic, very similiar to those of srufs during the fuedal ages. So misery leads to agression, and the leaders both spiritial and gov't haveto have a scape goat for thei poor living conditions so they blame the west, and of course the #1 Satan - the USA.

[-= JR =-]

Mike, i am not trying to be a smart ass here like all other posts before and after this one. so bear with me.

i started thinking about this the other day quite a bit and my mind changed totally.

We are equating the Middle East to Islam. Islam is 1.5 Billion people. Those people are in EVERY country.. US, Canada, Western Europe etc etc etc. They are in Seattle, they are in Orlando, they are in New Orleans.

there is only (relative to population) a few small spots in the world where people are distorting the Koran and have real extremist views. relative to the number of Muslims (1.5 billion).. the number of terrorists or extremists is almost statistically non-existent.

what i am saying is that Islam does not necessarily = terrorists, extremism or a bunch of poor, goat fucking villagers in the mountains of Afghanistan shooting at each other for something ones great great great great great grandfather did to the others.

Pat Roberton is trying to say Islam is a violent religion by quoting the Koran. I am saying that arguement is completely ignrant because the Bible itself has its own share of rape, murder, slavery and crusading. We are trying to point out how fucked up the Middle East is by showing it is predominately Muslim and fucked up... or that all terrrorists start there so we can say "haha... i told you so"

i think there is just as much a connection of extremism to poverty as there is to religion. i think the first cause is poverty... not "Allah told me to do it". I personally think that if Islam did not exist in those regions, they would be killing in the name of a Prophet named Bob or the "Mystical Talking Rock" or a school of porpoises... or over some other grievence which would become the catalyst for them to vent their frustrations from being poor and fucked up and living in misery.

i think that their devotion to Islam and Fundamentalists certainly does its its part to perpetuate poverty and ignorance. but i dont beleive that Islam itself causes violence by virtue of the fact that the Koran has violent passages or that Muhammed was a warrior.

violence and extremism historically, has thrived in poverty first. right now, they are called rebels, communist rebels, fundamentalists, extremists... in the middle east "terrorists" etc etc... depends on where they are in the world. basically, they are all people killing for what they believe in and those beliefs and rationales vary widely and are often interchangeable.

if "Islam" itself was the problem then we would have 1.5 Billion people trying to kill us. as it is,.... there is just thousands.

This is America... We could pave over a few thousand people in an afternoon and be eating a Happy Meal for dinner, at the new McDonalds built that day on their bones.

[Mike AI]

JR I understand your point, of coure there are not billions of people trynig to kill US, it is a small sect of Islamic Fundemantalist who are doing all the terrorist. However, if you look at polls there is a majority of Muslims who support these people. The State Reglion of Saudi Arabia is based on the strict, fundementalis very of Islam... and while they are not all picking up weapons, they do support these clowns. Look at the Madrases through out parts of the middle east, and central asia....


Ironicly Iraq is NOT a fundamentalist State, however Saddam is a pragmatist and is more then willing to use the terrorist as it favors his policies.

I keep saying our real issue and problem in the world right now is Saudi Arabia - they are the muscle, the brains, and the financing of the Islamic Fundementalist movement.

There are also strong movements in Pakistan, and in Iran.... though in Iran I understand it is wainging somewhat, and the younger generations are tiring of being led by old bitter religious men.

It is still a major threat to the world, I remember a college professor telling me in 1990 that Fundementalist Islam is going to be the biggest challenge to the world. One reason the Russians went into Afganistan was to put down these threats. The Russians are still fighting the same people, just in other parts of the region.

It is a complex picture, and to brush all people who worship Allah as a threat is defiantely wrong, but for our leaders to tell us Islam is great and a peaceful religion, that Saudi Arabai is our friend, Pakistan is doing everythng it can against terrorists - well this is ALL BULLSHIT!!!

[-= JR =-]

but for our leaders to tell us Islam is great and a peaceful religion, that Saudi Arabai is our friend, Pakistan is doing everythng it can against terrorists - well this is ALL BULLSHIT!!!
==============================================

this is another issue that is more complicated than it seems.

its all about diplomacy.

these places are also fragile politically and the whackos all have AK-47's hanging over the door and nothing to shoot at. Saudi Arabia is a poor country by world standards... but the monarchy in place is better than a new Saddam Hussein. Pakistan is the same Musharrif (sp) is barely hanging on and is in a difficult situation. the choice is between him as a leader and a list certified maniacs who will get access to the Nuclear Button.

dimplomacy is not always cut and dry. Russia for example went through a difficult economic transformation led by people who today could not manage a lemonaide stand without borrowing 7 million dollars in start up capital and being bankrupt the next week. IMF, World Bank and other sources gave Russia billions over the course of the 90's. Hundreds of Billions. They did it knowing that Billions were being stolen, that they had no hope of becoming fiscally responsible anytime soon. But the alternative to chaos and Yeltsin was Zhugonov who was inches away from winning the second presidential election and turning back the clock. It is estimated that the 6 richest people in Russia at the time, spent more than $150,000,000.00 in a few months to raise Yeltsins ratings from 3% to over 50%. To take an open stance that they were just a bunch of lying thieves, raping, stealing and robbing the world blind in some of the largest pyrmid scams the world ever saw.. like GKO government bonds where they were at some points paying 100% interest on 6 months... just to raise money to pay the interest on the previous bonds would have put Zhugonov in power.

but though it could be looked at as irresponsible in retrospect, that addiction to cash through the 90's, is what also prevented communism from coming back.

I would not doubt for a second that Yeltsin did not have a few drunken conversations with his buddy Bill asking questions like "gee Billy, do you ever wonder who might end up with the Nuclear briefcase if we lose power? there could be another Cold War... or worse. What do you think Bill? Personally, i think we just need 6 Billion more dollars for that to never happen"

to abondon Musharrif in Pakistan would put some scary people in power and it would put nuclear weapons in their hands. Each criticism of him for example, weakens him in many ways politically... puts more distance between them and the West and threatens to undermine his own fragile government. So, though it may not be right to say that they are perfect allies... to do otherwise and criticize them just weakens him politically, which is not a good thing either.

We buy oil from Saudi Arabia. They are some of the bigger fucking hypocrites on earth. They too are just hanging by a thread in terms of their own political power... as are most governments in the Middle East. I dont think the world will be better off if we denounce them or break ties with them. If we feel there is problems there today.. what will there be when the Monarchy is overthrown and real bad people are running that country? what effect can it have on the region? on neighbor governments? the whole Middle East is on pretty fragile political ground.

the world works better when money is a part of the equation. money = dependence and thus, influence. thats part of politics. Honesty however is not. North Korea agreed not to make nuclear weapons. why? because they were offered oil imports, food aid etc. We could also correctly say that his government is just a financially and idealogically bankrupt bunch of power hungry dickheads trying to black mail the world out of desperation.... but that would not take us closer to getting them to stop making nuclear war heads.

i think we should do anything and everything that is in our best interest. thats how Darwin would have wanted it. Frequently, it will include lying and stealing and shooting dictators in the head from 1500 yards out, while they are eating dinner with their family. Thats just life.

most people who assume the morally high ground in conflicts end up dead.... shot in the face while holding a flower in their hand.
:bjump:

[PornoDoggy]

Mikey, if you think the drivel quoted in that article is going to convince me to agree with Pat Robertson, you're sadly mistaked.

First, I would NEVER take the word of a fundamentalist Christian on what the Holy Book of another religion taught, any more than I would accept the interpretation of a Mulah on what the bible taught. You are correct in that Islam is a religion that is in a later stage of development than Christianity, but it's only +/- 500 years.

As I said in another thread yesterday, I've been worried about Islamic fundamentalism since before the embassy takeover in Iran. The reasons for the increase are wide and varied, and don't always have a lot to do with religion as such. Some of it is rooted in nationalism and anti-colonialism. Some of it is based on the oppressive governments under which it develops - blatant political activity is squashed immediately, whereas it can often hide under the guise of religion.

So, it just isn't as simple as some folks would like to believe. And we could expand this war to include the Pakistanis and the Saudis, I suppose, and radicalize millions more of them; that would certainly help our position right now, wouldn't it?

Oh yeah, and

Ironicly Iraq is NOT a fundamentalist State, however Saddam is a pragmatist and is more then willing to use the terrorist as it favors his policies.

Are you saying he is, or might? If you think he is, Where's the beef?

[Almighty Colin]

It's funny how at first you hear a lot of "Islam is a violent religion" and then the reaction "Islam is a peaceful religion" and then "No it's not".

In fact, and it sounds like we all agree, neither of these statements is true. The definition of a label like "Islam" or "Christian" or "Communist" is very broad. I have known people that call themselves Christian that do not believe in Christ as savior (that is another issue entirely). I know Christians that believe in karma and reincarnation. There are many people that do not "fit in"/ We try to further categorize the religion Christian with subcategories "Catholic", "Baptist", "Lutheran", and so on. We do the same with Islam. It helps some in our understanding but not entirely. We never quite grasp the full picture with these labels.

We are trying to categorize billions of people in this world so we can discuss things and think about them. Otherwise, it's a damned mess.

I don't quite know the word for it but "those people over there" are dangerous. The probem with many of the middle eastern governments is that they don't have control over that minority of people that are dangerous to US. Worldviews are colliding. Different strategies for life and empire.

JR said "Frequently it will including lying and shooting dictators in the head from 1500 yards out ... That's just life."

I agree with THAT!

[Cal]

Yep I wasn't saying that Islam as a whole was more violent since I did read passages of the Quran that were peaceful and caring, and it DOES state that they should coexist peacefully with all other monotheistic religions who read the old/new testament, but apparently people aren't really listening.

The Quran is a very angry and violent piece of scripture, and to base a religion on it is a little more dangerous than say, Christianity. Potentially dangerous, of course, plenty of muslims live in peace and tranquility. It's the hard-liners we have to worry about, but they're dangerous in any religion.

C.

[Almighty Colin]

BAH! The Bible deathtoll is WAY higher than in the Koran.

50,070 1 Samuel 6:19
3,000 Exodus 32:26-28
24,000 Numbers 25:6-9
500,000 2 Chronicles 13:15-18
120,000 2 Chronicles 28:6-8
1,000,000 2 Chronicles 14:8-12
--------------
1.7 million in those 6 passages alone including such classics as 50,070 people killed by God for looking into the ark. Remember Sunday school? God killed the first born son in every house in Egypt because he was mad at Pharaoh. Sorry, I don't know the dead babies count.

The early Christians should have had the sense to not package the Old Testament with the New. They were probably afraid the book would appear too small without it.

[Mike AI]

Colin, I think you are comapiring Jews to Muslims.... the Old Tesitment is all about ass kicking, raping, piliging, slaughtering....

The NEW Testiment, which si the basis for Christianity is centered around peace, and turing the other cheek.

One reason many Jews did not beleive Christ was the Messiah is because they have been told that the Messiah would be a warrior King.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 26 2002, 03:35 PM
The NEW Testiment, which si the basis for Christianity is centered around peace, and turing the other cheek.

The way I learned it...way back in Sunday school was that Christianity is based on both the Old and New Testament.....

The Old is the Christian History prior to Christ......

The New is the story of Christ and the early Christian church and of course, what is to come......

The history of the world is violent.

The 3 religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) that we are speaking of all use the same history as their base. Therefore the 3 religions that we are speaking of are all based in violence.

To interpret a history (what has happened in the past) as being the guide for how things should be handled in the future makes good common sense, learn from your mistakes etc.

To interpret the history as being a "literal" truth demanding that you use the methods used throughout that history as the "only" ways to handle the present and future is where "ALL" fundamentalist religions make their mistakes. There are fundamentalist Jews in the states and Israel that advocate violence as an means to an end, there are fundamentalist Muslims that advocate violence as a means to and end and there are most certainly plenty of fundamentalist Christians that advocate violence as a means to an end.

They are all wrong.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 26 2002, 03:35 PM
Colin, I think you are comapiring Jews to Muslims.... the Old Tesitment is all about ass kicking, raping, piliging, slaughtering....

The NEW Testiment, which si the basis for Christianity is centered around peace, and turing the other cheek.

One reason many Jews did not beleive Christ was the Messiah is because they have been told that the Messiah would be a warrior King.
That may be what the book says, but the people reading it didn't catch on to that for a while, Mikey ... and a great many folks wonder if they have yet. Was it Graham's son quoted on CNN after 9/11 that talked about nuking cities? Robertson's buddy Falwell claimed that God allowed 9/11 because of abortion and gays in America, and while he may have issued a retraction, it still looks like a big footprint on his tounge to me.

[-= JR =-]

There are fundamentalist Jews in the states and Israel that advocate violence as an means to an end, there are fundamentalist Muslims that advocate violence as a means to and end and there are most certainly plenty of fundamentalist Christians that advocate violence as a means to an end.
====================
how many of them today proclaim the duty to kill anyone who does not believe what they believe?



Last edited by -= JR =- at Nov 26 2002, 05:07 PM

[sarettah]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Nov 26 2002, 05:06 PM
how many of them today proclaim the duty to kill anyone who does not believe what they believe?
lol...I do not have an exact count.... but:

There are several right wing fundamentalist Christian groups that have advocated (successfully) the bombing of abortion clinics and the killing of abortion performing doctors...

They have been vocal about it to the point of even having the wanted posters on the net

Fred Phelps advocates violence towards gays...in the name of the bible....

Several groups use the "literal" interpretation of the bible as the basis of their belief in "white supremacy" and advocate violence towards minority races as what god would want....

I will post more later, gotta go to my "day job"

:)

[-= JR =-]

i think you are right.

if we were in Iceland or somewhere more or less objective and were reading about those things in the US or local press, we would form the same opinions and perceptions about Christians in the US as radical Muslims in the Middle East.

and that would probably be a more or less, fair assessment.

[-= JR =-]

but Torone would happily dismiss it is some type of Norse/Liberal/whaling community Media propaganda
:blink:

[Torone]

Jr,
Torone don't give a damn what the denizens of other countries think. America is unique. I think that, instead of criticizing us, they should be trying to emulate us. Where else can one speak one's mind on a public board without fear of gov't reprisal? What other country has a member of an "oppressed" minority as a secretary of state? We change our gov't regularly with no more that a lot of name-calling and a few voting irregularities...who else can say that?

BTW, the people who are allowed to immigrate from ANY other country to the US (or who manage to do so illegally, in some cases) come here for the freedom and the opportunity to better themselves.

[sarettah]

At work now............

I don't think the danger is so much in fundamentalism...although any form of exremism can be dangerous if it involves "true believers". I think the danger comes when the religous is combined with the government. In my humble opinion, most of the places where trouble is currently arising have governments that are based in religion. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran are all absed on the muslim religion and all seem to take a fundamentalist view. Israel is based on religion, but swings back and forth between the fundamentalist conservatives and the moderates.

When we take religion, which is generally unyielding in it'as opinion of it's own righteousness and combine it with the government, who's objective is "law and order" we end up with a dangerous combination, A government that is not open to question and reports to "God", not to the people. A government that is "right" no matter what, because they are following the "truth" in their governance.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Torone@Nov 27 2002, 10:41 AM
Where else can one speak one's mind on a public board without fear of gov't reprisal?
You need to get out more ;-)

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 27 2002, 10:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Nov 27 2002, 10:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Nov 27 2002, 10:41 AM
Where else can one speak one's mind on a public board without fear of gov't reprisal?
You need to get out more ;-)[/b][/quote]
Well, far be it from me to agree with Torone, but.....

On this mornings Drudge:

Amnesty Article Here (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6422)

Amnesty says two Chinese Internet users were executed

US firms "colluding" in State clamp down claim

By Mike Magee: Tuesday 26 November 2002, 19:05


HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATION Amnesty International issued a warning today on its Web site that Internet users in mainland China could be killed by the State for expressing their opinion online.
Thirty three people were named as "prisoners of conscience" today, for apparently doing little more than expressing their opinions online.

Two "subversives" have already died in custody, it claimed.

And the statement, which it released today, also warns that overseas companies were colluding in a crack down we first reported last August.

The full report is here.

One paragraph states: "Foreign companies, including Websense and Sun Microsystems, Cisco Systems, Nortel Networks, Microsoft have reportedly provided important technology which helps the Chinese authorities censor the Internet. Nortel Networks along with some other international firms are reported to be providing China with the technology which will help it shift from filtering content at the international gateway level to filtering content of individual computers, in homes, Internet cafes, universities and businesses."

The report asked China – avowedly a police state – to release anyone detained or jailed for using the Internet to express their views or to share information.

American companies are helping China track down people that the government wants to detain for "online subversion".

It has designated 33 people detained for using the Internet as "prisoners of conscience".

Two people have already died in custody, the report said. AI says that anyone surfing the Internet in China could be at risk of "arbitrary detention and imprisonment".

There are around 60 million Internet users in mainland China, with the numbers rising steadily. µ

[Mike AI]

Bottom line is, who would you rather spend a day traveling with in a packed car? a fundementalist muslim, christian or jew?

I think 1 of these 3 would probably try to kill you. I am no talking about the past, I am talking about the modern world we live in.

Of course I personally would prefer to drive in the car with the Islamic Fundamentalist - but only if I had my glock. :unsure:

[PornoDoggy]

Actually, trapping me in the car with a fundamentalist anything is an attempt to drive me to homicide.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 27 2002, 11:29 AM
I think 1 of these 3 would probably try to kill you. I am no talking about the past, I am talking about the modern world we live in.

I think all 3 of these would try to kill you...

It all depends on whether you prefer a quick death from a bullet or knife, or a painful slow death from choking on your own bile......

[Mike AI]

HAHA Well I can zone out people when I have to - so that would be no problem.... but when someone wants to kill me, and then tries to do it physically that is a line I do draw.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 27 2002, 11:29 AM
Bottom line is, who would you rather spend a day traveling with in a packed car? a fundementalist muslim, christian or jew?

I think 1 of these 3 would probably try to kill you. I am no talking about the past, I am talking about the modern world we live in.

Of course I personally would prefer to drive in the car with the Islamic Fundamentalist - but only if I had my glock. :unsure:
I lived with palestinians in the same room for 6 months,
I met "Born again" Christians on the cruise,
I was giving rides to Hassidic Jews in my car service days...

I personally would rather travel in the car with 2 lose women
;-))

[Mike AI]

HAHA Me too Serge, but that was not an option.... :P

[Almighty Colin]

YEs, but the question is "Where else can one speak one's mind on a public board without fear of gov't reprisal?" not "Where can one NOT speak one's mind on a public board without fear of gov't reprisal?"

[Almighty Colin]

Mike,

I'll know Christians have dropped the Old Testament when they stop telling the stories of Noah, Moses, and Abraham in Sunday School and posting the Ten Commandments in the same place. Until then, it's not just a Jewish thing. The fact that they take the good and ignore the bad from it is no different than a "selective reading" of the Koran.

Speaking of which, I didn't include the death total from the flood.

Deaths = Everyone - Noah's family.

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Colin@Nov 27 2002, 12:09 PM
YEs, but the question is "Where else can one speak one's mind on a public board without fear of gov't reprisal?" not "Where can one NOT speak one's mind on a public board without fear of gov't reprisal?"
Ok. seems like we have two threads going now...lol...

Well, less and less countries are allowing free expression of one's thoughts. On the net or off. Including the U.S..

The European union is trying to outlaw "hate" talk through legislation. Germany has already outlawed sale of "Nazi" memorobilia etc.

The Middle Eastern countries censor and monitor Internet activity in their country.

In the U.S., companies are attempting (some successfully) to pursue chatters and message board posters through various interpretations of libel and slander laws and through copyright argument (ie: cybersquatting cases against sites such as Ihateford.com etc ..and, no I dont know if that is the name of the actual domain, but I assume we are all aware of many actual cases where the claim is "cybersquatting" but the actual aim of the litigation is to shut down a site that badmouths a company)

The recent "Homeland Defense" bill includes some rather scary legislation geared towards allowing the monitoring and bugging of computers etcetra....

It is happening everywhere.



Last edited by sarettah at Nov 27 2002, 01:06 PM

[Almighty Colin]

sarettah,

If you look at the whole world, I do not think there is a movement away from freedom of expression and speech. In Russia today there is much more freedom of the press than there once was. Glasnost. How about Latvia? Estonia? The entire Iron Curtain. How about Iran compared to 20 years ago? How about Uganda? Chile?

In the past in the US there was the Sedition Act of 1919, The Un-American Activities Committee, McCarthyism. These things come and go but there is nothing worse today than yesterday. In fact, I think you are quite more free to speak your mind in America than 50 years ago. Not that long ago blacks and women couldn't even vote in this country. What kind of voice was that?

This stuff has always gone on somewhere in the world at all times.

In the past in the US there was the Sedition Act of 1919, The Un-American Activities Committee, McCarthyism.

None of this is new and I do not see a trend away from freedom of speech.



Last edited by Colin at Nov 27 2002, 02:08 PM

[sarettah]

lol....I had to go back and reread what I wrote..lol....

I agree that it is free-er now than at some times in history...

In particular world wide....

I was trying to address where else you go..etc... the question raised earlier...

And my conclusion should have been that really, nowhere are you actually free to express yourself completely...........

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by sarettah@Nov 27 2002, 01:06 PM

It is happening everywhere.
"it" is always happening "everywhere"
somehow "it" is always getting "worse"

"it" is always the beginning of "something"
to come.

yet here we all are. still living our same stupid
lives and trying to get as many people to jack
off as possible, while debating world politics
and the same "beginning of the end." that has
been coming for 10,000 years.
:unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

[sarettah]

but "IT" is for real this time......

"IT" was coming...IT" is coming, "IT" will be coming............

Om Mani Padi Om

(pronounced:"hooooommmmeeeeeesendddddddsommmmmeeeeeemooooonnnnn eeeyyyyhommmmmeeeee")

[Almighty Colin]

When I was a kid climatologists thought an ice age was imminent. The logic was that there were so many pollutants in the air that more sunlight was being reflected than ever before. The earth's temperature has dropped from the 1940's to the 1970's and boy, were we in trouble. It never came.
(NOTE: Global warming will end up the same way).

Like JR is saying, we have a tendency to extrapolate the very recent into a long term patterns and this is accented by popular books predicting things like Y2k, Global Warming, Global Cooling, The Coming Recession, the end of the world, another World War. The press spoke of "another Vietnam in Afghanistan", "another Vietnam in Iraq (1990)".

This is the first thing I thought of when I read "It is happening everywhere."

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by sarettah@Nov 27 2002, 02:22 PM
but "IT" is for real this time......

oh. well that changes everything.

i was confusing your "it" with the "it" of the other 10,000 years of paranoid and delusional people who dreamed up more "its" than can be counted.

sorry to lump your "it" in with all the other silly "its" of history


.... and the bananas are STILL optimistic
:bdance: :bjump: :bdance: :bjump:



Last edited by -= JR =- at Nov 27 2002, 02:34 PM

[Cal]

Due to cooling in the jet stream and other areas scientists are indeed predicting a 'mini ice age' reminiscent of the one around the time George Washington was crossing a well-known river. We're just talking a few degress of cooling though, nothing major.

C.

[Almighty Colin]

I read this great book when I was 10 called "Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds". It's a classic of western non fiction and was published mid 19th century. Ever since, I have always noticed how quickly a short trend becomes a full-out mania or fear.

Just found the text of this great book:
http://www.litrix.com/madraven/madne001.htm

What I have remembered my whole life was the chapter on the tulipmania of Holland in the 1600's. Here is the chapter: http://www.litrix.com/madraven/madne004.htm

[Cal]

Interesting piece by our friend Rushdie today in the Times.

http://nytimes.com/2002/11/27/opinion/27RUSH.html

C.

--

No More Fanaticism as Usual
By SALMAN RUSHDIE


It's been quite a week in the wonderful world of Islam.

Nigerian Islam's encounter with that powerhouse of subversion, the Miss World contest, has been unedifying, to put it mildly. First some of the contestants had the nerve to object to a Shariah court's sentence that a Nigerian woman convicted of adultery be stoned to death and threatened to boycott the contest — which forced the Nigerian authorities to promise that the woman in question would not be subjected to the lethal hail of rocks. And then Isioma Daniel, a Christian Nigerian journalist, had the effrontery to suggest that if the prophet Muhammad were around today, he might have wanted to marry one of these swimsuit hussies himself.

Well, obviously, that was going too far. True-believing Nigerian Muslims then set about the holy task of killing, looting and burning while calling for Ms. Daniel to be beheaded, and who could blame them? Not the president of Nigeria, who put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the hapless journalist. (Germaine Greer and other British-based feminists, unhappy about Miss World's decision to move the event to London, preferred to grouse about the beauty contest. The notion that the killers, looters and burners should be held accountable seems to have escaped notice.)

Meanwhile, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hashem Aghajari, a person with impeccable Islamist credentials — a leg lost in battle and a résumé that includes being part of the occupying force that seized the Great Satan's Tehran embassy back in the revolution's salad days — languishes under a sentence of death imposed because he criticized the mullahs who run the country. In Iran, you don't even have to have cheeky thoughts about the prophet to be worthy of being killed. The hearts of true believers are maddened a lot more easily than that. Thousands of young people across the country were immature enough to protest against Mr. Aghajari's sentence, for which the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, duly rebuked them. (More than 10,000 true believers marched through Tehran in support of hard-line Islam.)

Meanwhile, in Egypt, a hit television series, "Horseman Without a Horse," has been offering up antiSemitic programming to a huge, eager audience. That old forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" — a document purporting to prove that there really is a secret Jewish plot to take over the world, and which was proved long ago to have been faked by Czar Nicholas II's secret police — is treated in this drama series as historical fact.

Yes, this is the same Egypt in which the media are rigorously censored to prevent anything that offends the authorities from seeing the light of day. But hold on just a moment. Here's the series' star and co-writer, Mohammed Sobhi, telling us that what is at stake is nothing less than free speech itself, and if his lying show "terrified Zionists," well, tough. He'll make more programs in the same vein. Now there's a gutsy guy.

Finally, let's not forget the horrifying story of the Dutch Muslim woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has had to flee the Netherlands because she said that Muslim men oppressed Muslim women, a vile idea that so outraged Muslim men that they issued death threats against her.

Is it unfair to bunch all these different uglinesses together? Perhaps. But they do have something in common. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was accused of being "the Dutch Salman Rushdie," Mr. Aghajari of being the Iranian version, Isioma Daniel of being the Nigerian incarnation of the same demon.

A couple of months ago I said that I detested the sloganization of my name by Islamists around the world. I'm beginning to rethink that position. Maybe it's not so bad to be a Rushdie among other "Rushdies." For the most part I'm comfortable with, and often even proud of, the company I'm in.

Where, after all, is the Muslim outrage at these events? As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?

At least in Iran the students are demonstrating. But where else in the Muslim world can one hear the voices of the fair-minded, tolerant Muslim majority deploring what Nigerian, Egyptian, Arab and Dutch Muslims are doing? Muslims in the West, too, seem unnaturally silent on these topics. If you're yelling, we can't hear you.

If the moderate voices of Islam cannot or will not insist on the modernization of their culture — and of their faith as well — then it may be these so-called "Rushdies" who have to do it for them. For every such individual who is vilified and oppressed, two more, ten more, a thousand more will spring up. They will spring up because you can't keep people's minds, feelings and needs in jail forever, no matter how brutal your inquisitions. The Islamic world today is being held prisoner, not by Western but by Islamic captors, who are fighting to keep closed a world that a badly outnumbered few are trying to open. As long as the majority remains silent, this will be a tough war to win. But in the end, or so we must hope, someone will kick down that prison door.



Last edited by Cal at Nov 27 2002, 12:32 PM

[Almighty Colin]

Cal,

Can you give us a copy-n-paste?



Last edited by Colin at Nov 27 2002, 03:09 PM