Atheist Blogger Sentenced To 3 Years in Prison For Insulting Islam 412
An anonymous reader writes "Egyptian blogger Alber Saber, maintainer of the Egyptian Atheists Facebook page, has been sentenced to three years in prison under Egypt's blasphemy law for posting the trailer for the anti-Muslim film Innocence of Muslims. This film was widely blamed for al-Qaeda's coordinated attacks on U.S. embassies on September 11 of this year, which were meant to pressure the U.S. for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is imprisoned in the U.S. for his role in the World Trade Center attack of 1993. Amnesty International calls the sentence an 'outrageous' assault on freedom of expression."
Really? (Score:2)
I watched it on YouTube... it was the biggest pos movie I've ever seen. Hell we made better home movies than that pos movie could ever be
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've not seen it, but I have to approve any way. Fundamentalist Christians fighting oversensitive Muslims? Whichever one wins, enjoy the show.
"The movie is accusing us of following a religion of violence. Such accusations are intolerable - start murdering unrelated people until the insults stop!"
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Godzilla and Mothra fight it's Tokyo that pays the price.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stalin was not a stamp collector. Someone who is not a stamp collector is an aphilateist. This proves that being an aphilateist leads to killing millions, and that all aphiliateists are immoral beasts.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is, Fundie Muslims [holycrime.com] have more in common with Stalin's Russia [youtube.com] than either have to do with stamp collectors.
FYI: The USSR was officially and actively atheist.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: The USSR was officially and actively atheist.
Yes, and yet Mr. Gorbachev managed to refrain from killing milions of people.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
And lots of Christian, Jewish, and other religious leaders do not kill their people either, so when Atheists condemn all religions on the actions of a few, it is completely disingenuous double set of rules, one for evaluating Atheism and one evaluating Religions.
The fact is, PLENTY of people in Atheistic (official) government countries were (and are) persecuted exactly for their religion. Namely Jews and Christians in Soviet Russia, Falun Gong and others in China, etc and so on.
However, this is when Atheists apply the "No True Scotsman" logic and exempt themselves from the very thing they do to other religions, namely painting with broad brushes. Shouldn't we all be able to paint with the same bush?
And if you read through enough Slashdot topics on Theism vs Atheism you'll find plenty of +5 comments from Atheists that suggest killing (or other inhuman treatment) of anyone having any faith. And in my opinion, they are just as dangerous as any religious extremist.
Point being, many Atheists love to tout how tolerant they are, until they meet someone with faith, and then they expose their extremist intolerance for anyone not like themselves, the very thing they condemn in others.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Christopher Hitchens, may he rest in peace, used to pose this to any and all religious people of stature that he met, offered money to anyone who could satisfy this challenge for years and never had to pay up.
Now of course the corollary question, name me an immoral act that was performed because of religion and everybody has answers within seconds.
Morality is innate in humans, put there by natural selection. Religion has no claim on morality.
Of course, evil acts do not require religion, however religion discourages critical thinking in a way that can easily justify immoral acts.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.
apostasy [wikipedia.org] *wink*
Re: (Score:3)
Really? I have a challenge for you. Name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.
Praying the rosary in the full belief that doing so will assist a recently departed soul into Heaven.
Now where is Mr. Hitchens' estate? I have a check to collect. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a moral act bit It is spell casting.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to - the act was saying the requisite prayers, on that particular device, while carrying that belief.
QED. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
With all due respect to Hitchens, his "challenge" completely missed the point. (It was, of course, neither the first time nor the last this happened to him.)
Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that a non-religious person can't perform moral acts as religious people do, merely that they don't. The latter claim is essentially not under dispute. Religious people give far more to charitable causes in time and (if you leave off Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, two outliers who pull the average up all by themselves) in money.
By the way, the reasons why this is the case are also fairly well-understood. It has nothing to do with identity, belief or adherence, and everything to do with regular attendance at a place of religious worship. People who are not religious typically don't have their philosophical worldview explicitly tied to charitable giving regularly every week.
For the record, I would take it as a challenge to the non-religious to do something about it.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Religious people give far more to charitable causes
Citation, please. And proselytizing expenditures and church heating bills don't count.
Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that a non-religious person can't perform moral acts as religious people do, merely that they don't.
I take offense at that. If non-religious people "don't perform moral acts", then neither do religious people, by the same definition.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Citation, please. And proselytizing expenditures and church heating bills don't count.
I'll do you better than that: an interactive tool which shows the data [philanthropy.com]. There's a link on that page detailing how the data was compiled. (Note that IRS data only includes people earning over $50,000 a year.)
I take offense at that.
You probably shouldn't. You're a human being, not a statistical average.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll do you better than that: an interactive tool which shows the data [philanthropy.com]. There's a link on that page detailing how the data was compiled. (Note that IRS data only includes people earning over $50,000 a year.)
... which handily debunks your own claims. GP said: "And proselytizing expenditures and church heating bills don't count." - while your source lumps them together with real charity:
Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine statesâ"Utah and Idahoâ"have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.
When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.
(emph. mine, source [philanthropy.com].)
TL;DR: atheists give to charity, christs give to the church.
Re: (Score:3)
The context is a challenge posed by Christopher Hitchens to "name me one". I named one.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
A very good post. I think humanism (or the atheism+ thing) should more closely associated with charitable works. The problem with atheism as a label is that it says very little about a person. In a way I find the label "Christian" to be almost as meaningless.
On the subject of charity, I prefer to take this angle:
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods (or active disbelief), and that implies nothing in terms of charity. Christianity, by any mainstream understanding, is very much about charity. Accepting that Christians, as a group, give proportionately more to charity than non-believers, then why don't they give more? Why do many Christians in the western world live in a luxury that Jesus and his apostles could not have imagined. Why does my Christian friend (and he is one of the nicest guys I know) have two houses, two cars and a pretty comfortable standard of living? Like I said, he's a great guy, yet why does he spend so much on these luxuries when there are so many people in this world suffering? Why is it that the Catholic Church has so much cash, while elderly followers continue to tip money in to the tray? I'm reminded of a saying that goes something like "a priest with more than two pairs of shoes is a fraud". That money those worshippers put in the tray didn't just go to the steeple fund. I've heard from older generations of bishops here having pretty fine digs and a ready supply of fine wines. Some bought, and some donated to men who were more like local barons than true ministers of Christ.
Answer those questions and we'll also know why so many Christians have sex outside of marriage, divorce and disregard so many other teachings of Jesus and his apostles. I'm thinking it's cognitive dissonance among other things. I know a lot of good Christians and atheists. My girlfriend is a Christian, and aside from the occasional quibble, we're pretty much in agreement as to how to lead a decent life. The main difference is in terms of judgement: My actions are judged by myself and other people. Her actions are judged by God. Either way, we're good people who, without a doubt should do more, but certainly aren't doing nothing in terms of charity and trying to bring some happiness in to this world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Great post yourself.
That said, I have yet to see an atheist (besides retired philanthropists) that gives 10% of their income away while working a regular job (heck, over half of Christians don't do it). But I know several Christians that give away 20% or more.
Christians sometimes live in luxury because God has blessed them financially. The Bible is full of wisdom, and people that read and follow it make extremely wise decisions, which often leads to financial success. Why don't they give more to the poor
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
A christian giving 10% of the money they earn to their church is most definitely not a definition of charity, but more akin to giving money to a club that you are a part of. I give various percentages on my money to different things I am a part of too but that doesn't make it charity. Since church "donations" are essentially a black hole, it is almost impossible to actually know how much really goes to charity, and how much goes to increasing the wealth of the church. But as someone who used to be a part of a church, from what I saw, I'd estimate less than 5% of the money the church received actually went to true charitable activities such as feeding the poor, etc.
I wonder what the actual percentages christians giving to charity are, and whether it is more or less than atheists. As an atheist I donate to charitable activities, and I certainly know others who do as well. But of course that is anecdotal.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
A sin is bad, but not evil. Evil is sin that is repeated without repentance. I can kill a person, even in a fit of rage or whatever, that does not make me evil, killing people repeatedly is evil. Manson is evil, the guy who killed the rapist of his daughter is not evil. See the difference?
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that a non-religious person can't perform moral acts as religious people do, merely that they don't.
Statements like this make me despair for humanity. It's completely, utterly wrong, on the face of it. It doesn't even stand up to momentary scrutiny, and yet here you are, dismissing a very significant part of the world's population as morally bankrupt. Worse yet, you're claiming they do so by choice.
Look: If you want to have a good discussion on the nature of faith, on the things that drive us to perform selfless acts in the true tradition of Jesus[*], then read Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory [wikipedia.org], and come back when you begin to understand that human motivation and morality are not nearly so clear-cut as some might think.
Living a life of decency and service to others is fucking hard, amigo, and it starts by not shitting on others just because they don't subscribe to your particular newsletter.
HTH, HAND
-------
[*] Yeah, atheists admire Jesus' teaching too. Amazing, isn't it? We just don't think the ascension to Heaven part is required in order for us to emulate his ways. How's your mind? Not too blown, I hope.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
For example, a belief in a superior race can come across both through religion (we are divinely appointed to rule X people) or without religion (we are ethnically more evolved, thus making us best suited to rule X people).
People are people and have the same nature regardless if they believe there is a God, believe in many gods or believe there is no God at all. Its no surprise that a lot of violence occurred in the name of religion (or the belief in a lack of religion) because its what people most strongly believe in and it allows for the hiding of the root causes of the conflict. Its much more heroic to die fighting for what you believe in than it is for someone to die, say, acquiring a lot of land. Therefore, conflicts which were based on human desires such as the crusades were depicted as a religious struggle because it gains much more support and makes the deaths seem nobler. Consider the Trojan War, in order to make it sound noble it was fought over love, rather than the real reasons (the Greeks really wanted the wealth of Troy).
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
In the Koran the muslims are told to be violent against sub-humans (non-muslims). The Koran goes as far as to call non-muslims monkeys and pigs. That violence and name-calling can be found here (Sura 2:191), here (Sura 5:33), here (Sura 8:12), here (Sura 8:60*), here (Sura 8:65), here (Sura 9:5), here (9:29*), here (Sura 9: 123*) and finally there (47:4). Marked * are disputable, it all depends a bit which translation is being used one can be found here: http://www.universalunity.net/English_Translation_By_R_Khalifa.htm they CAN be read as non violent, but as we -unfortunately- all know this is hardly ever the case.
Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, and to me that is hardly immoral. Maybe meek. But not immoral.
So please focus on the problem here. The Koran and its scimitar wielding mohammedan followers are as welcome on earth as a handgranade with the pin taken out in a kindergarten, most of the other religions... meh, not so much a problem.
Ok, here and there a petrol bomb on an abortion clinic by some sort of a Christian weirdo who doesn't follow his/her own scripture, but that is usually about it. Those are (no matter how horrific) mere accidents compared to the daily crimes against humanity committed by the followers of the religion of peace and respect. And very mild ones too if you take in the severity of the hideous crimes of those hatebeards. And yes Sheldon this is sarcasm. Cutting of clitorises of 5 year old girls, making women wear a burqua's and head-scarves, maiming of women for (supposedly) looking at another man, beheading for 'sorcery', burning down churches, hanging of people who are gay or listen to the 'wrong music', stoning of women because they are raped and therefore (obviously) are prostitutes... the list goes on. Hardly a sign of peace let alone respect huh?
Oh, and that is what is happening today. Not 3000 years ago (Troy) or 500 years ago (inquisition) or whatever. The last biggies (Napoleonitic wars, crim-war, boerwar (both 1 and 2), American Civil war, WW1, WW2 and finally the Cold war) were not fought under the flag of religion (with a slight difference in Nippon where the emperor was to believed to be god).
Oh, and while we are at it, can we please keep out the Jainists? Can we keep out the Budhists as well too? (Ok technically speaking not a religion, but you get the point)
There is no problem in religion in itself. Religion gives people a reason for self-reflection, a purpose in life, a way finding consolidation in the loss of a loved one. I dont think a creationist is/has a problem. It is a funny way of renouncing a proven fact, but hey... it is not harmful, all the 5 year old's still grow up with a clitoris. That is the whole point of my post I think; leave people alone, all of you!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
*ahem*: ...and so on...
Point the first [loc.gov]
Point the second [jstor.org]
Point the third (and mind the Cryllic - Chrome should translate it) [ukrweb.net]
Point the fourth [democratic...ground.com]
Point the fifth [ciuspress.com]
The USSR made it a point to suppress (and eventually try to eliminate) religion, as Marxism wouldn't have room for it.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
The only fiction is what you are saying. Here are the facts:
Soviet anti-religious legislation
The government of the Soviet Union followed an unofficial policy of state atheism, aiming to gradually eliminate religious belief within its borders and replace it with widespread atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_anti-religious_legislation [wikipedia.org]
Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Communist Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union [wikipedia.org]
The USSR had a active campaign to remove religion since 1921
1917-1921 [wikipedia.org]
1928-1941 [wikipedia.org]
1958-1864 [wikipedia.org]
1970s-1990 [wikipedia.org]
Persecution of Orthodox Christians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are seriously fucked up and completely clueless about the former soviet union.
Can you even begin to understand why your statement makes exactly no sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Those people were not killed in the name of atheism dipshit. It was all about political power and had very little to do with religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at china, no religion killed 80 milion...
doesn't matter people kill people... In name of God people kill people, without God, the make someone else God and kill people...
Re: (Score:3)
Religious motivations are also not strictly theistic. It basically does not matter if people believe in god or the supernatural, neither is going to stop them from following violent and dangerous ideologies. People are good or bad with or without believing in god. It really does not make a difference. If the 20. century shows anything then that atheists are just as easy to trick into commiting horrible crimes as believers. Maybe even easier than believers.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Jesus wept! To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle actual religion.
You must be one of those DBAs that can't accept NULLs
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle actual atheism. What do we have to do until you get it. The thing you hold dear and fear being belittled has no value to us, moreover going through life without this pillor of strength you rely on is what we value.
Pink Hoofie Denial (Score:5, Insightful)
What these superstitious types just don't get is that the Soviets and the Chinese murdered all those people because they didn't believe in pink unicorns. Fact. We can lay the fault precisely at the door of pink unicorn disbelief. Filthy apostate pink unicorn deniers! It's no wonder, either. The Book of The Pink Unicorn Disbeliever lays out the precise steps: Gulags, trips to Lubyanka, bullet in the head, bill the family. Yessir. Pervasive pink unicorn disbelief. It's evil. Purest, darkest evil.
It obviously had nothing at all to do with the fact that the leadership of those countries at those times consisted of screaming psychotic fucktards. No. Nothing at all like that.
Re: (Score:3)
It obviously had nothing at all to do with the fact that the leadership of those countries at those times consisted of screaming psychotic fucktards. No. Nothing at all like that.
That's completely true, and also applies to the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and every other horror done "in the name of God." God isn't happy with any of these people no matter what they profess to believe or disbelieve.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you speak for god. Christian then, yes? Off we go:
Selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21), God orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, a
Re:Pink Hoofie Denial (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point. Let's see if I can get it across to you without the snark.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. There's no dogma, no "book", no canon that says "oppress" or "murder" or anything else. Atheism carries with it no political philosophy. So if a person is atheist, and they're being nasty, it's not a consequence of the atheism. As I implied in the grandparent, the place to look is at personality disorder (because generally speaking, if you want to screw with other people's lives, liberties and free choices, that's what you're looking at.) Personality disorder knows no bounds of theist or atheist.
Many forms of theism -- and in particular Christianity, Judaism, and Islam -- do present instructions in various forms to do away with, convert, or otherwise harass those who don't agree with them. History is replete with examples of them specifically exercising those instructions.
So the bottom line here is that superstition contributes directly and materially to pogroms, crusades, witch burnings, repression of science, subjugation of women, jihads, censorship, blue laws, vilification of sexuality and so forth. Atheism does not.
When you examine cause and effect, atheism comes up a dry well. There's nothing in the idea "I hold no belief in a god or gods" that has a defined or recommended next step.
That's not to be confused with the reaction of an atheist when a superstitious person tries to enforce the rules of their superstition on the atheist. No one reacts well to being told what to do, and/or being threatened, by people and philosophies with which.they have little in common. But it is important to realize that atheism isn't directing that response: it is a reaction to repression brought on by over-reach of the superstitious.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle actual religion.
To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle atheism.
FTFY
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lack of belief is NOT agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief that we don't know(*) whether there is a god or not. If there is an invisible man that floats in the sky that controls the universe, he could make the world exactly as it is now. So I am an agnostic.
I also believe that there is no god, because there is no evidence whatsoever to prove it. So I am an atheist.
(*) or more strongly, that it is impossible to know.
Re: (Score:3)
I also believe that there is no god, because there is no evidence whatsoever to prove it. So I am an atheist.
(*) or more strongly, that it is impossible to know.
One flaw in your logic: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot prove a negative.
Since there is no evidence to show that there is a god, the default supposition is that there is no god. So someone needs to provide evidence that there is one.
Re: (Score:3)
"Active disbelief" is atheism, the other one is agnosticism.
I think the assertion that there is absolutely no deity takes a leap of faith. It's probably a smaller leap than a deist, but it's a leap. Factually, no one really knows. They either assume with some measure of faith, or they don't assume anything.
I see two camps here, Agnostic Atheism, and Dogmatic Atheism. They're both Atheist as they both reject theology. What they do next is what makes them Agnostic or Dogmatic - "Active" as you put it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If we are actually in a simulation, as some have suggested, then that would make the runner of the simulation a god. If someone believed that that was an unlikely possibility, but still a possibility, but didn't believe in other types of gods, would they still be an atheist?
Re: (Score:3)
Lack of belief is atheism. Admitting lack of knowledge is agnosticism.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Most atheists are also agnostics.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
Atheism is a statement of belief.
Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge.
They are orthogonal concepts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
And a hair in the form of a moustache behaves as a top-lip warmer. That makes just as much sense as what you wrote.
It doesn't follow that hair alone, with no further addition or clarification, will tickle your nose when you scrunch up your lips. A moustache is also not a necessary progression from hair any more than Marxism is a necessary result of atheism.
Re: (Score:2)
Anoint it with prego and I'll believe in it.
Re: (Score:3)
You get double points, since you've also enraged all the revisionist leftists who refuse to believe that the USSR was the murdering, delusional train wreck that it truly was.
Could you please provide a link to these "revisionist leftists". Do these people really exist in any significant numbers, or is it some college freshman at an unaccredited university with a blog? As a leftist pinko commie I, and believe I can speak for all my comrades on this, regard the USSR as a bunch of mass murdering asshats.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think blasphemy laws really differentiate based on production values.
1st Post! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"learn to deal w shit."
They have. Prison. Damn liberals. In my day we would have severed his mouse.
Re: (Score:3)
To paraphrase Trotsky:
You may not be interested in Fundamentalist Islam, but Fundamentalist Islam is certainly interested in you.
The sooner everyone realizes this...
I think you missd a word (Score:5, Insightful)
Like "incorrectly" blamed, since we now know those attacks weren't over the YouTube video.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that its a bit simplistic to exclude it. Some events do actually have multiple causes. The real world is complex, and rarely aligns with a fox news soundbite.
Re:I think you missd a word (Score:5, Informative)
I think that its a bit simplistic to exclude it. Some events do actually have multiple causes. The real world is complex, and rarely aligns with a fox news soundbite.
And it never aligns with President Obama's talking points but that doesn't change the fact that the protests had nothing to do with the video. In fact, it wasn't even the pretext for the gathering.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
" In fact, it wasn't even the pretext for the gathering, and the administration knew this all along"
FTFY
Re:I think you missd a word (Score:4, Insightful)
don't be stupid. People seem to think the white house has precog abilities and know exactly what happens, and the motivation behind event the moment they happen.
I would love for people like you to be involved in something like that. If you survive you might actually get a glimpse of the confusion and dynamic shifts that happen during, and immediately after, these events.
Re:I think you missd a word (Score:4, Informative)
The difference between a camp fire and fire in the forest being on fire is the amount of fuel.
The video is not the main cause, but it was definitely used by Islamists to get more people on their side and to justify (in a perverted way) a more severe attack.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case though, what you think is worth 2 shits and an empty jello shot glass. There's been *plenty* of evidence that these attacks were planned before the video was released, based on much more compelling reasons and in some cases the people at the attacks had never heard of the video. So not to put causality aside, if event A was already set in motion before event B even happened... it's hard to blame A on B.
If I put my tinfoil hat on, there are even people who claim the CIA were distributing anti
Re: (Score:3)
And to finish that for you...
But B may contribute to A making it worse....
Re: (Score:2)
the event was planned prior to the video. It's stupid to think it added to that event.
Re:I think you missd a word (Score:4, Informative)
What's curious is that the summary basically says as much in the same sentence: the attacks were intended to pressure the U.S. for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any evidence for this? Al Quida may be extremeists, but they aren't entirely stupid - even they must have enough knowledge of US politics to realise that aim is entirely unrealistic. A minor leader they could maybe get, but an 9/11 attacker? Any politician who dared sign the release papers wouldn't only be out of a job, he'll be lucky to make it through the next year without an angry mob destroying his house.
Well, is it Illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
has been sentenced to three years in prison under Egypt's blasphemy law for posting the trailer for the anti-Muslim film Innocence of Muslims.
There's an axiom that covers that:
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Not that I agree with being imprisoned for posting a video (much the opposite), just making an observation.
Re:Well, is it Illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
That axiom is great advice for adapting to a new culture.
For advancing a culture, it's kind of ineffective.
Re: (Score:2)
And whose culture is it anyway?
Re:Well, is it Illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
That axiom would me no women voting, enslaved people, and non stop dark ages.
Re: (Score:2)
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Not that I agree with being imprisoned for posting a video (much the opposite), just making an observation.
Well, you do have a point. Jesus did say to go unto the heathens if you want to convert heathens (paraphrasing of course); all others get the hell out of dodge if you don't want your head to go missing...
Re: (Score:3)
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Heck with that, Next time I'm in Rome, I'm going to do as the Visigoths did.
lucky guy (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering that in sharia, blasphemy (and so many other acts) can be punished with death, he got off light.
Re: (Score:2)
Egypt isn't under sharia law. yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly even their 1971 and 2011 ones were subservient to sharia ("the principal source of legislation").
Re: (Score:2)
(ones == constitutions, sorry)
things like these (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
2 points (Score:5, Interesting)
2 - If anybody actually thought that the eqyptian government was going to be all good now because of the uprising clearly has not been paying attention. Id love to visit but not until there is another revolution there.
Re: (Score:2)
2 - If anybody actually thought that the eqyptian government was going to be all good now because of the uprising clearly has not been paying attention. Id love to visit but not until there is another revolution there.
There's a few things about Egypt you should probably know. For one thing, the poverty rate there isn't much worse there than the United States (15% versus 20%) despite the radically different size of the economy and median income ($6k versus $40k). And before you jump down my throat on "proving that", I sourced that information from the CIA World Factbook [cia.gov]. They have a significantly lower violent crime rate than here as well -- almost four times less (and yes, I can back that up too from a reliable source, T [unodc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
so know illegal aliens getting arrested for blocking traffic is the same as jailing someone for posting something some peoples club considers offensive?
your violent crime examples of homicides, not violent crime.
Of course, rape and violence on women is rarely reported, and even less frequently documented. so you link is less facts and more half truth.
The crime rate was low in Germany During the Nazi regime. Is that really an argument that Nazi Germans is better then the US, or any country?
Most women and chi
Re:2 points (Score:4, Informative)
They have a significantly lower violent crime rate than here as well -- almost four times less
Is that why they had cops with full-size AKs on every street corner in the tourist quarter last time I visited (which was in 2005)? Or why it was strongly not advised to ever venture outside of said quarter - not that you'd want to, because the city blocks surrounding it would be most accurately described as something you'd expect to see in the aftermath of a bombing run on the city.
Numbers are funny things, especially self-reported ones.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1 - No, the attribution isn't too far off. What likely happened is that the terrorist group(s) have been planning and practicing for this for a long time but had no opportunity to carry out their plans, biding their time for such an opportunity. Well, enter the idiots who just had to release their "magnum opus" (magnum doofus IMO) on September for maximum impact. Problem solved.
Hopefully you got your gold star from Obama for repeating this. Since Mrs. Rice lied multiple times about this and it was shown to be a lie, I have yet to find a SINGLE administration official that currently has this position. Not a single one is saying this anymore. Please prove me wrong. Rice got caught lying, Obama skipped a meeting with the PM is Israel to go on Letterman and make this lie, Obama went to the UN to make this lie. Apparently you are the only idiot left that believes it.
By the way, th
Is it Islam or something else? (Score:2, Interesting)
Saber Ayad was arrested on September 13 after angry groups of men surrounded his house and called for his death, accusing him of heresy, atheism and promoting Innocence of Muslims – a short film regarded by many to be offensive, as it portrays the Prophet Mohammad and Islam in a negative light.
I just saw a documentry on ancient Alexandria last night with that historian hotty, Betteny Hughes [google.com], and how it and Egypt was the center of learning, knowledge, multicultural and tolerant of others.
WTF happened to them?
Is Egypt's backwardness really because of Islam or has the religious peanut gallery just ruined it for everyone including their fellow Muslims - kinda like how the Evangelical Christian nuts are ruining Christianity for everyone else here in the States.
Re:Is it Islam or something else? (Score:5, Insightful)
Each religions claims to speak for God but it's always men saying "god doesn't like this" or "god wants you to do that". However, god never actually says or does anything. If god actually exists, then let it appear to everyone and speak for itself. This whole notion of "insulting" islam is actually about punishment for speaking out against the establishment.
Re:Is it Islam or something else? (Score:5, Funny)
You must have some inside information that no one else has. No one knows for sure who burned it down, but none of the suspects were Christian, And considering it was burnt before 0 AD, I am not sure how you would think it was.
Re:Is it Islam or something else? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's referencing the Carl Sagan episode on the library of Alexandria.
Truth is, the library went down four different times... two of which had less to do with any religious motive than with foreign conquest.
The last time it went down was, well... during the initial Muslim conquest of Egypt.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It was burned a few times, mostly from the fine Wikipedia article...
1. Caesar accidentally burned the library down during his visit to Alexandria in 48 BC
- lost 40,000 scrolls.
- Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it.
2. its contents were largely lost during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (270–275)
3. Hypatia (the last librarian?) killed by Christian mob, in retaliation to Jew
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly correct.
There were seperant plundering of the 'library of Alexandria.
Ceasurs in 48 BC set it on fire accidentally. however it wasn't completely lost.
They also kept copying works and keeping them at the Serapeum .
Of all the destruction, this is the only one that wasn't done for religious purposes.
The post was probably referring to the last destruction by Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria in AD 391
I know it's taught as if it was one building that burned down, but it's more complex then that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its "Monotheism" that is evil specifically. It teaches people that they have the *one* truth, and that anyone else must be wrong. Polytheists are generally more accepting I find.
Re: (Score:3)
If god actually exists, then let it appear to everyone and speak for itself.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV [biblegateway.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hypatia was murdered by Christians in Alexandria.
Changing definition of tolerant (Score:2)
I just saw a documentry on ancient Alexandria last night with that historian hotty, Betteny Hughes [google.com], and how it and Egypt was the center of learning, knowledge, multicultural and tolerant of others.
WTF happened to them?
By the standards of the Ancient and Medieval world, current day Egypt is multicultural and tolerant of others. For most of human history, "tolerant" meant that the state would not burn down the houses or places of worship of those who did not not adhere to the state religion. It also meant that non-believers were generally not killed and seldom imprisoned simply for being non-believers.
It did not mean that non-believers were exempt from religious law. It did not mean that non-believers received the same
"Arab Spring" (Score:4, Insightful)
So much for that bullshit...
On the other hand. . . (Score:2)
The prescribed sentence for this is death, so I'm sure the authorities think they're being totally reasonable and lenient with this "criminal."
Brace Yourselves (Score:2)
Atheist riots are coming!
Re: (Score:2)
Are we going to drink microbrews and talk about outer space?
Ancient Egyptian Statues == Blasphemy . . . ? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about all that ancient Egyptian stuff: statues, temples, pyramids, and the like? All this idolatry is also blasphemy under Islam.
So are they going to, like, dynamite the pyramids, like their Muslim brethren did to those Buddhas in Afghanistan?
Dear Muslim world: (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe advances, India advances, China advances.
You remain mired in medieval nonsense. And you will continue to remain poor, unhappy, and mired in belligerent wars, due what you emphasize as important in your societies.
Please grow up.
Thanks,
the rest of the world