That attitude, protestors said, mean we have entered an "age of mockery".
no shit sherlock
Google's London office was barricaded on Sunday, after thousands of protestors marched in protest against youTube's continued hosting of the controversial film, The Innocence of Muslims. London's Daily Telegraph says 10,000 protestors participated. The BBC preferred a figure of “up to 3500” and says the peaceful protest aimed to …
no shit sherlock
Behead those who say Islam is violent.
There's one part of Sharia law those who want it to the UK keep very,very quiet about. I can't think why - it's not like it's not going to be welcomed with open arms by the indigenous population, and reported fairly and rationally by our noble elite journalists. I am referring, of course, to the public floggings for drunkenness.
the british answer to that is the "this is a drink free zone" sign that they put up exclusively around areas where people like to get pissed in public.
The freedom to protest and the freedom of speech to express their view here in the UK, remember that.
Yet they want to curtail it!
A regional cultural religion, while the Koran is one book every Tom Dick and Harry puts their interpretation on it. While one protesting Muslim screams and shouts he is rarely speaking for all of the Muslim Faith. It is also de rigueur to be offended by anything the West does or Western values. Yet the oppression in many Islamic Countries is quietly forgotten. The extremists always shout louder than the moderates.
Should we listen to people who shoot teenage girls, murder diplomats, fight and kill each other because of a difference of opinion, treat women as chattels and where women are not equal, destroy old artefacts and buildings all in the name of one interpretation of their faith.
The blame lies with the so called scholars and what they decide to interpret the Koran as. The blame lies with the people who without question follows these interpretations. Historically Islam was a faith of teaching, it led the world in learning, architecture maths and the written word. That was until the scholars got hold of it and pulled it back so it remained in the Middle Ages.
I'd say that just as Google have the freedom of speech to host the video, they also have the freedom to peacefully protest criticising it - that isn't in itself arguing against freedom of speech.
Of course they lose points if "The core of the group's position is that free speech has gone too far" is the case.
Someone needs to teach these religious folk the good old saying of "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me..."
... sits squarely on anyone who encourages superstition by holding faith in it up as an admirable virtue and on those that refuse to speak up and call it what it is.
If you seek to coddle insanity, the result should come as no surprise. Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Astrologists, Spiritualists, ..., ... all of them nutters.
"Historically Islam was a faith of teaching, it led the world in learning, architecture maths and the written word."
Not wishing to belittle Islam, but this is wrong.
The Arabic nations encouraged learning, and involved both Islamic and non-Islamic scholars in gathering the teachings from many older cultures and translating them into Arabic. The origins for much of their knowledge were the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese and Persians, who between them had the greatest philosophers, engineers and mathematicians.
We may have lost much knowledge without the help of Islamic scholars, but they were not working alone, and I have found nothing to say they advanced any of those fields significantly, save to simplify trigonometry, and while they developed a form of calligraphy, other cultures have been doing so separately for much longer.
"The blame lies with the people who without question follows these interpretations."
But that's *exactly* what organised religion wants its followers to do. You can't blame people for being brainwashed from birth to believe that these packs of lies they are 'taught' as truth.
Disclaimer before the down-voters start: I will defend anyone's right to believe in their God or Gods as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on others. I draw the line at brainwashing and/or mutilating kids in the name of organised religion.
In my faith, we worship Dammahum. Anybody that says it backwards or spells it backwards, or claims any others to be a prophet, are greatly offending me, and they are also comiting blasphemy.
"Historically Islam was a faith of teaching"
What you're saying isn't untrue but you do seem to be glossing over the inconvenient fact that Islam, from the very beginning, was a religion of violent conquest and expansionism.
Historically, Islam is a religion of the sword. It didn't go anywhere until they started beheading people who didn't "submit" to the will of Allah. The Crusades were a response to that aggression, not the cause of it. We may look down upon the "religious idiocy" of those who sent millions to their deaths, but in the context of the times it was a reasonable political move. Life was cheap and nothing motivated the average person more than religious fervor and the chance to become a martyr for God. If you wanted to maintain your political status, you had to harness that fervor to your political goals.
"The group's manifesto “Unreservedly condemns the preposterous film vilifying Islam and desecrating the sanctity of the Holy Prophet Mohammad peace be upon Him” and “Calls for all civilised fellow human beings to join in the ‘Campaign for Global Civility’”."
Last i checked you didn't need a video to vilify islam. You have plenty of people that do that for you.
"The core of the group's position is that free speech has gone too far when videos like this are acceptable."
Um its free speech for a reason, last i check just cause your view points don't like what anothers is. You have no right to stop them from voicing it. Just cause you don't like it don't mean he or anyone else has no right to say it, If you want to go down this right of free speech has gone to far. I say it has gone to far for you to Burn a US flag, its offensive to me and pretty much every US citizen. How about that one?
I agree, lots of things are offensive to somebody.
The core of the group's position is that free speech has gone too far when videos like this are acceptable.
They are not necessarily acceptable, and whether they are or not is not the point. The thing is that with the internet you have to actively say that you want to watch something by clicking on it. The viewer is in control. If someone can't resist, then that's their own problem.
... come together and develop an approach to this kind of material.
Fine. But only if the Pastafarians are in charge of the effort. Otherwise, I'll be offended.
... will start marching against ALL organized religion. These assholes are wasting an AWFUL lot of public money, world-wide, that could be better spent elsewhere.
 Organized religion is the root of all evil.
Nope. Clearly not the case. Ideology is like software, merely a tool. It can be used for good or bad. Being an atheist, it's weird to find myself in a position to defend religion. But there's a weird phenomenon going on here in the comments. People are so liberally brainwashed (including yourself) that they refuse to call a spade a spade. The truth is, these events speak more about Islam then they do about religion in general. However, it's easier to blame ALL of them as then you don't have to appear "uncivilized" by singling out one particular group of people. After all, there are no Christian protests about numerous movies that mock Jesus. So stop engaging in false equivalence. This is a Muslim problem. The own it.
Sorry, had to down vote you because there ARE.
"Last Temptation of Christ" being the obvious one that springs right to mind. Sure, the protests were rather laughable in their weakness, but they were there.
Yes, and there's the Westboro Church protesting at soldier's funerals. And the moment Christianity generates similar headlines, you will have a point:
> Sure, the protests were rather laughable in their weakness, but they were there.
So, you want to ban all protest?
This is so true, its the ideology of a belief system that determines how ppl who follow that belief system behave.
It really doesn't matter if there is a god in the belief system or not.
Lots of people have died in the name of communism or nationalism.
I spent 10 years working in Muslim countries and learn a lot about Islam during that time.
If you know what they have to go through to be good Muslims you can totally understand why people who don't live by the same rules can make them very angry.
"will start marching against ALL organized religion"
Interestingly, Islam is not an organized religion as there is no central governing body.
Yet you forget that lot of public money saved by religious organisations who care for the vulnerable, disadvantaged, poor, sick, addicted, rejected - the very people that would require an increase in your taxes if these organisations (while admittedly receiving tax benefits) which receive the vast majority of their money from freely given gifts from brainwashed sheep, were to vanish.
I work every day with many organisations that help people like these; many of them are not religious, but there are enough to show your point is uneducated.
There is a story about a guy who saw money spent on a religious leader and he complained that the money Could have been better spent elsewhere as well...
I don't want to get into the debate, but just inject a little education... Westboro Baptists are free speech trolls, they are all trained lawyers and they take (sometimes contradictive) stances on emotive subjects to goad protagonists into violating their free speech rights.
There's also this: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14189/westboro-baptist-church-three-phelps-children-are-on-states-payroll
And bizarrely enough, Fred Phelps was a top campaigner for civil rights (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/fred-phelps-was-a-brilliant-civil-rights-lawyer-before-he-started-hating-gays-for-a-living.html) - that's right, he was one of the good guys - back in the 60's.
Based on the evidence, I don't know exactly what motivates the current activities of this guy or his 'church' but I'm certain it's not religion or faith-based.
I think you forget the outrage that Monty Python's Life of Brian started. TV debates and the eventual ban of the film in a large number of cinemas. No sense of humour is allowed in organised religion
Don't be silly, almost no organized religions have central governing bodies.
An organized religion is one that is founded and united for the specific purpose of expressing a belief, not just one that is centrally governed.
I think you're mixing up the structure of a large sect (such as the Pope heads with Catholicism) for the organization of the entire religion - the Pope and the various cardinals and bishops below are not in charge of all of Christianity, just their bit. HM the Queen currently heads up the Church of England, for example, which is a different Christian sect, but does share some beliefs and follows a similar power structure.
In the days of newsgroups, text would be ROT13 encrypted, marked (in plaintext) "offensive to ...." -- and if you decrypted that ROT13 and got offended, you had no one to blame but yourself.
Could something like that not be done for video, audio, pictures .... ?
"In the days of newsgroups, text would be ROT13 encrypted, marked (in plaintext) "offensive to ...." -- and if you decrypted that ROT13 and got offended, you had no one to blame but yourself.
Could something like that not be done for video, audio, pictures .... ?"
Muslims get offended by knowing it exists. These clowns haven't watched it to get offended. Someone told them it existed and thus they are offended.
"Muslims get offended by knowing it exists."
Not entirely correct.
"These clowns haven't watched it to get offended. Someone told them it existed and thus they are offended."
OK. Much better. They have been told. They haven't observed. Kinda like all of the idiots who practice "religion".
Haven't watched it? Offended because someone told them? Are you sure you aren't thinking of Daily Mail readers?
I work in the same building as Google's Bangkok office, and there were protesters outside for an hour or two on the afternoon of the 27th September. They came to this area after bothering the US embassy in the morning.
Whatever. If they want to stand outside for a day in Bangkok's notoriously hot and humid monsoon season, that's up to them.
This is not about religion - this is about people *choosing* to be offended to push forward their own agenda.
or has the reactions to this video been more offensive than the video itself. Considering I haven't watched the video I couldn't say. This does raise an interesting point though, could they not have employed the same self control (indifference) and not have watched it..
I haven't seen it either but they are saying it vilified Islam. Look at all the stuff over years followers of Islam have done, suicide bombing innocent people, most recent one is the Pakistan girl. she was 14 and a Taliban gunman shot her on her way from school. No video can't make Islam look any worse.
Well let's see...
On one hand you've got a low budge video that said some nasty things...
On the other hand you've got people who over-reacted and MURDERED people...
Yeah their reaction is more insulting to Islam then the damn video.
I personally think that once you get into a religion in a big way you have developed a mental health problem which you should go and have checked out.
It certainly would explain how these people behave.
I personally think that once you get into a religion in a big way you have developed a mental health problem which you should go and have checked out.
Sounds like the way Stalin "used" psychiatry.
I've seen it, it is a poor copy of the Life Of Brian, inane and puerile, not something that deserves being protested about but just laughed at for being so crap.
In fact I would agree with a fatwa on the producer, just to stop him making such shite again.
The Barbra Streisand effect.
Had they just ignored it, barely anybody would even know it existed. But because such a fuss has been kicked up masses of people have gone out of their way to see it to see what all the fuss is about.
No, The Barak Obama effect.
Nobody even knew the damn thing existed until he started lying about how it sparked the Benghazi attack.
Round them up and take them to a departure point from the country. Give them a list of Muslim countries that have blocked Youtube (or had google do the blocking) and point them to the ticket office and suggest they buy a ticket to the country of their choosing that fits their "moral compass".
The funniest thing is if there hadn't been protests I would have not known of the video and wouldn't have gone looking for it.
How very liberal and tolerate of you, not at all like what you are criticising.
And people vote this shit up.
> How very liberal and tolerate of you, ...
I thought it was very liberal and tolerant of him*. After what he said was:
"... and point them to the ticket office and suggest they buy a ticket to the country of their choosing ..."
Note that he says "suggest they buy a ticket". He does not say you should force them out of the country. He is being very helpful to them by showing them countries that have a system of censorship that they want and showing them where to the buy tickets.
* I say "him" but it might be "her"
Indeed what is wrong with deporting those that are so violently and steadfastly offended by the state where they choose to reside? Clearly highlands of Pakistan, Afghanistan, deserts of UAE, or if they are enterprising perhaps the economic hothouses of Indonesia and Malaysia would suit them better. I'd suggest Turkey too, but I think they'd put them straight into one of their famous jails.
Err... It was a peaceful protest. There is nothing wrong with deporting foreigners who instigate violence, but this protest - as far as I can tell - was British nationals saying "we don't agree with this." and this seems like perfectly reasonable use of free speech to me.
"Round them up" did not exactly sound an optional tone though.
I oppose censorship and would do so in this case. I would no doubt disagree with the protestors.
But I also support freedom to protest. I'm not sure that rounding people up, and "suggesting" they leave the country, just because you disagree with them, is so great either. I'm worried at the Daily Mail/EDL style arguments here.
Next time the Daily Mail suggests something should be banned, will the OP be calling for them to be rounded up, and "suggest" they leave the country?
Is it always the case that someone should move to another country rather than protesting? I find that a rather odd idea.
Then they should stop shooting teenage girls in the head or spraying them with acid. And they didn't even insult Islamic religion.