Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
If you Google it you get the answer in the first item of the Google list of hits, without even having to go to the hit page. I'll bet some folks use it for a password? Fred Holmes At 09:00 PM 2/18/2008, Robert Michael Abrams wrote: There are ALREADY some 5,878,499,814,186.5 websites with graphic images of sex acts on [their respective] home page[s]. Where have YOU been? Oh. I almost forgot: You need to be over 18, and I'll need a valid credit card before we can proceed. Extra credit to anybody who knows the significance of the number I used. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
Since all belief in a deity is irrational, religion invites extremism. So, I'm not sure hijacked is the right word. Jeff Myers -Original Message- From: Jordan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 12:57 PM Subject: Re: Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet The more I hear about Islam, the more it becomes apparent that as with some religions in this country, it has been hijacked by extremists. I only had to see Jon Stewart's interview with Mark Siegel, Benazir Bhutto's former speech writer, to be reminded of this. http://tinyurl.com/yrl2rd Steve Rigby wrote: Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted. http://tinyurl.com/2f9q7w ** ** * For information about the list, managing your list subscription, list rules, * * list archives, privacy policy, calmness, and a member map go to CGUYS.ORG. * ** ** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
I seem to remember seeing at least one of those images in Wikipedia of the Prophet in high school when we studied the worlds great religions. I think it was in a series of film strips my teacher really liked to use. On Feb 16, 2008 8:01 PM, Steve Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted. http://tinyurl.com/2f9q7w * For information about the list, managing your list subscription, list rules, * * list archives, privacy policy, calmness, and a member map go to CGUYS.ORG. * -- John Duncan Yoyo ---o) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
I think that it is because the radicals of the Muslim religion make a lot of noise, and that the press simply repeats this noise, that we hear so much about it. I don't know how moderate Muslims feel about these images. I believe that people should not look at things they don't like. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jordan, I don't dispute your basic premise, however I think it's unfair to label those who are offended by the public display of these images as extremists. Islam (to my limited understanding) has a fundamental objection to graven images and depictions of the Prophet seem to be the most egregious form of this. I would say that the vast majority of those asking for the removal of those pictures are devout adherents to their faith, and are overall decent people. Some members of this list (as well as most adult citizens of the US) are also devout adherents to their faith, however their faith may not have an issue with graven images. But they are no less devout for all that. Would you consider them extremists? I also think there comes a time when exercise of one's freedom of expression goes beyond a reasonable limit, if enough people are genuinely offended. Imagine if Wikipedia were to display graphic images of sex acts on its home page. This may sound ludicrous, but to some Muslims, a graphic depiction of the Prophet is equally offensive. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but can't a fantasy be hijacked? Jeff Myers wrote: Since all belief in a deity is irrational, religion invites extremism. So, I'm not sure hijacked is the right word. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So does Judaism and Christianity: Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above... prohibits the construction or fashioning of idols in the likeness of created things (beasts, fish, birds, people) and worshipping them. So that World Wildlife calendar you may have hanging on your wall is a problem. Same for your Obama or McCain poster. ...according to which reasoning the Hillary poster on your wall should offend no one. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
Hey everyone needs a target for Brick bats. :-) Stewart At 07:21 PM 2/18/2008, you wrote: On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So does Judaism and Christianity: Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above... prohibits the construction or fashioning of idols in the likeness of created things (beasts, fish, birds, people) and worshipping them. So that World Wildlife calendar you may have hanging on your wall is a problem. Same for your Obama or McCain poster. ...according to which reasoning the Hillary poster on your wall should offend no one. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
At 08:57 AM 2/18/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't dispute your basic premise, however I think it's unfair to label those who are offended by the public display of these images as extremists. Islam (to my limited understanding) has a fundamental objection to graven images and depictions of the Prophet seem to be the most egregious form of this. This observation, even if true, misses the point. Whether or not someone, anyone, is offended by the images of Mohammed, simply isn't what is at issue. What IS at issue is the demand by some Moslems, which demand is made in the name of, and for the sake of, ALL of Islam, that the entire world behave as if it, too, were ALSO similarly offended. Simply put, this demand is those Moslems asking the rest of the world to practice THEIR religion. Other interpretations of this demand characterize it as those Moslems claiming that the entire world has some duty to be as offended by the images as are the demanding Moslems. I disagree with you in at least this narrow respect: You can't believe the entire cosmos should practice your religion (in even so narrow a way as being offended by images of Mohammed) unless you are extreme. Moderate Moslems, hell, moderate ANYBODY, practically by definition, understand that other opinions and philosophies abound, and that those other opinions and philosophies are entitled to exactly the same respect that Moslems want for Islam. Only someone extreme would or could adopt that attitude that, in all of creation (Oops! Sorry!), his and only his view is entitled to respect. I realize that by characterizing things in this way, it opens up the entirely new subject of the extent to which extremity is (or should be) tolerated, or, even worse, understood as acceptable, in this culture or that. Quaere: To what extent, in a polity that has made itself a democracy (particularly one with an establishment clause in its constitution), is it extreme to put references to a deity in the polity's Pledge of Allegiance and on that polity's currency? In a democracy, is a polity being only a little bit theocratic, just like a woman being only a little bit pregnant, or are there differences of substance? I need to warn, ahead of time, those of you who might want to answer this with majority rules arguments: That way lies (1) madness, (2) publicly manifest error, and (3) demonstrations to the list of your ignorance of democracy. I'm beggin' ya, I'm PLEADIN' with ya, think of something else. In fact, think of how much damage Rosa Parks will do to your majoritarian position. I would say that the vast majority of those asking for the removal of those pictures are devout adherents to their faith, and are overall decent people. I think the evidence clearly indicates that this isn't true, as some of us small d democrats see things, although I'm not really sure what to make of your adjective decent. I wish I knew, with more specificity, what you mean by using that word, and how you know, empirically, that it's even applicable, or upon what empirical sources, or objective criteria, did you draw to come to your opinion? Some members of this list (as well as most adult citizens of the US) are also devout adherents to their faith, How would you know what most adult citizens of the US think, believe, or practice? How would anyone know? Polls? All polls do is report what people say, rather than what they believe. however their faith may not have an issue with graven images. But they are no less devout for all that. Which, as I mentioned above, really isn't the issue. Would you consider them extremists? Yes, possibly, and I said why, above. I also think there comes a time when exercise of one's freedom of expression goes beyond a reasonable limit, if enough people are genuinely offended. Why is it your call to make? Why is it ANYBODY'S call to make? What, exactly, is meant by reasonable limit? Who decides how many is enough, and why should it even matter? That is: Why should I be silenced or censored simply because whatever I say pisses everybody off? Should my father have stopped being Jewish if enough [Christians had been] genuinely offended? Like I suggested above, when you are talking about small d democracy, it isn't particularly safe to hang your hat on majoritarian arguments. Imagine if Wikipedia were to display graphic images of sex acts on its home page. There are ALREADY some 5,878,499,814,186.5 websites with graphic images of sex acts on [their respective] home page[s]. Where have YOU been? Oh. I almost forgot: You need to be over 18, and I'll need a valid credit card before we can proceed. Extra credit to anybody who knows the significance of the number I used. This may sound ludicrous, but to some Muslims, a graphic depiction of the Prophet is equally offensive. Ludicrous, indeed, even if THAT were
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:57:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagine if Wikipedia were to display graphic images of sex acts on its home page. This may sound ludicrous, but to some Muslims, a graphic depiction of the Prophet is equally offensive. That *does* sound ludicrous. What's so offensive about sex acts? (-: Hey! I'm just kiddin'! -- R:\katan Tea. . .Earl Grey. . .Hot * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
I don't know about offensive, but it does garner media interest. http://my.earthlink.net/article/str?guid=20080218/47b910d0_3ca6_1552620080218420090843 Stewart Make mine Red Rose At 10:54 PM 2/18/2008, you wrote: That *does* sound ludicrous. What's so offensive about sex acts? (-: Hey! I'm just kiddin'! -- R:\katan Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Prince of Peace Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
There's an interview with Mark Seigel on Book TV right now and again at 9 pm and mid-night. A refreshing view of the Muslim world. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted. http://tinyurl.com/2f9q7w * For information about the list, managing your list subscription, list rules, * * list archives, privacy policy, calmness, and a member map go to CGUYS.ORG. *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
The other year when the cartoon thing was an issue I asked one of our users to take down the image. I dunno, it just seems Islam is in a Very Bad Place right now, and, unlike the thousands of years when the Christians were in it, now they can do real *planetary* damage. On Feb 16, 2008 8:01 PM, Steve Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted. http://tinyurl.com/2f9q7w * For information about the list, managing your list subscription, list rules, * * list archives, privacy policy, calmness, and a member map go to CGUYS.ORG. *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
Good for themthey have more courage and conviction than most of the media, who have been caving into these sort of religious demands. Randall On 2/16/08, Steve Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted. http://tinyurl.com/2f9q7w * For information about the list, managing your list subscription, list rules, * * list archives, privacy policy, calmness, and a member map go to CGUYS.ORG. * * For information about the list, managing your list subscription, list rules, * * list archives, privacy policy, calmness, and a member map go to CGUYS.ORG. *
Re: [CGUYS] Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
At 05:01 PM 2/16/2008, Steve Rigby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted. http://tinyurl.com/2f9q7w 'At's-a too bad, eh? It's one thing for you voluntarily to construct your life around a set of (quite literally) Dark Ages practices and religious and cultural philosophies [which, in this case, call for theocratic totalitarianism; can you say, caliphate?], but it is quite another to insist that the rest of the world indulge you (by abandoning its own rights) while you do it. If I were the one responding, I would be sorely tempted to up the ante by saying that removing the images was against my religion, and that [Allah Himself said that] only instruments of Satan would have made the request, in the first place. Let it be the problem of the would-be censors, and let THEM assume the risk that, and carry the freight if, that kind of response generates more heat than light. Tough First Amendment noogies! And for the purposes of showing just how unprincipled they actually are, I'd also be tempted to order the would-be censors to demand that Ahmadinejad retract his cruel and tasteless comments about The Holocaust and the destruction of Israel. Yo! Mahmood! Shut up, dog! Bob Hey, yo, hepty-doop! OK End -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1283 - Release Date: 2/16/2008 2:16 PM * For information about the list, managing your list subscription, list rules, * * list archives, privacy policy, calmness, and a member map go to CGUYS.ORG. *
