|
|
Post a New Comment
No Subject Posted by Orvis So how did we get from the idea of inner struggle to live life morally to strapping a bomb to myself and detonating it in a public place? Can you expand on this misinterpretation of the concept? No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader It's called being radicalized. You have a group of people, radical Islamists, who selectively quote and interpret the Qu'ran, though they aren't qualified, even in the eyes of the Muslim world, and they tell young, poor, unemployed men seeking a place in the world that they will be doing God's will if they strap that bomb to themselves and detonate in a public place. No Subject Posted by Reality I do not understand why you take the word (assumins he isn't contradicting himself at the time) of a child molestor, polygamist, and war mongorer. If you choose to follow the advice of someone as religion does, shouldn't that person be pretty damn close to perfect? to borrow from Family Guy: "I'll be damned if I am going to sit here and be lectured by a pervert." No Subject Posted by Orvis Ok...that's what I expected. There are good Muslims and bad...and good Muslims are against what the radicals do. You keep making this point, but you never offer a solution. If this is true, why is it so hard to stop these people in the Middle East? If most Muslims are good and think this is horrible, why not start a jihad to end these whacko radicals? Why aren't "good" Muslims doing SOMETHING to stop all this crap? I get that not all Muslims are radicals. However, the moderate Muslims need to stand up against these freaks. When radical clerics control large groups of people and encourage them to blow shit up, there's a problem. Kill them. When people follow their religion over the laws of their own country, there's a problem. Imprison them. When these groups of people are willing to ignore human rights, they become no better than animals. The problem isn't that some Muslims are bad...the problem is that the bad Muslims wield so much power in Middle Eastern countries. If the moderate Muslims don't find a way to control these people, they're eventually going to piss someone off bad enough to blow the crap out of the whole region. I'm a big believer in judging people based on what they do rather than what they say. Until Muslims start DOING something, I find it hard to be sympathetic to the "misinterpretation" of Islam by the general public. All I see moderate Muslims doing is talking. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader And so I guess all Christians in the South were right behind the KKK? No Subject Posted by Orvis SAWR, would you like to try once more to form a coherent question, or are you satisfied with looking like a dumbass? awesome Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader enough with the stupid comments. the guy is trying to bring out a point and his article makes sense. if you dont know something then dont comment...you are all college students and you should be adult enought o repect other's beliefs. No Subject Posted by ??? Enough with WHAT stupid comments? Your comment was, "If you don't know something then don't comment," and you're telling someone else that THEIR comment is stupid? That's the stupidest comment yet. No Subject Posted by Reality Would you respect the opinion of those who followed Charlie Manson? What about those of all the registered sex offenders? So why is it when one person kills and wages war he is a murder, but Mohammed is the "prophet" of the "religion of peace"? Why is it vastly illegal for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl. Aisha (sp?)was still playing with dolls, something forbidden in the Islamic religion, but she was allowed because she was so young. Yet when this "prophet" does it people look the other way? Fuck that. Omar is a nice guy from what i can tell. He is severly misguided though as are the rest who follow this faux-religion. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader Reality, do you even know the history of your OWN religion and those that have followed it? Kudos Posted by Brian M. Erskine Omar, your writing is a joy to read. You make logical progression in your stories and that is most refreshing! Even when I do not agree with what you have to say, it is still fun to read.
No Subject Posted by Reality The history of Christianity? Sure. Were there wars fought in the name of God? Of course. Was my Prophet someone who married a child? No. Did He lead forces into battle? No. Did He have multiple wives? No. Do Christians, the majority of them, use the Bible to incite terrorist attacks against civilians? Certainly not. Now, for all the questions above: Did Mohammed marry a child, lead forces into battle, have multiple wives? Yes. Do Muslims use the Koran to incite violence against whole societies? Yes. My point is if you are going to strive for perfect, then the person who is leading you there should be perfect. That just makes sense. Close your fucking tags Posted by Reality Test No Subject Posted by Ray What's this I hear about a petition? No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader what? No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader yeah, it sounds all well and good, but i can't keep my icecream from melting too fast over there. Why all the Islamic prostheletizing? Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader I must admit that I find it a tad bit disturbing that funding from RU is being used by Whim to put out such a continuing stream of Islamic propaganda. Has anybody ever heard of the separation of Church and State? No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader At a time when life expectancy is about 30, childhood is much shorter. Also, our ideas of "childhood" in general did not even emerge until the 19th century; before that, "children" were simply seen as short adults. Has anybody ever heard of the separation of Church and State? Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader Yes, let's enforce it and get that pea-brain Erskine to shut up, too... No Subject Posted by Reality Would anyone like to show me anywhere you can find a government document pertaining to "seperation of church and state"? There's no such thing. No Subject Posted by Jeezie (1) Whim is not funded by taxpayer dollars, (2) Whim strongly stands by the First Ammendment right of freedom of speech (3) In not one article has Omar encouraged conversion to Islam, forced others to convert to Islam, or even asked for others to convert to Islam (4) Brian Erskine and other writers have written extensively on Christianity in the Whim Magazine and there are 2 other articles this week published concerning Christianity and homosexuality. ok? Posted by Ziggy Marley duude "Mary was approximately 14 years old when she got pregnant with Jesus. Joseph, Mary's Husband is believed to be around 36. Mary was only 13 when she married Joseph. When she first was arranged with Joseph she was between 7 to 9 years old." According to the "Oxford Dictionary Bible" commentary, Mary (peace be upon her) was was 12 years old when she became impregnated. No Subject Posted by John hey omar, you should find a picture of yourself where you don't look some much like a crazy arab/Nascar fan No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "(1) Whim is not funded by taxpayer dollars," Really? Because by simply looking at this site, I notice that it's on a Radford.edu server, I notice that it's offices are in Heth Hall, and that in the legal section it states that the RU Student Handbook rules are in force here. So how much does Whim pay for use of that server and those offices? "(2) Whim strongly stands by the First Ammendment right of freedom of speech" Cool. When is Whim going to add "porn" to the movie review section? Oh, and it's "Amendment", not "Ammendment". "(3) In not one article has Omar encouraged conversion to Islam, forced others to convert to Islam, or even asked for others to convert to Islam" And "Dianetics" isn't a Scientology recruitment tool, either, right? "(4) Brian Erskine and other writers have written extensively on Christianity in the Whim Magazine..." Is this supposed to support your argument? No Subject Posted by John pardon me so much I have seen the light. Posted by Rick Snee Unlike the Christianity articles, not one article on Islam has damned me to Hell nor explained to me how my own viewpoint on Christianity is wrong. I can see now why Christians are threatened by these articles. Every week, the narrowminded minority of us continues to makes the rest of us look like assholes. And furthermore ... Posted by Rick Snee What's wrong with writing about porn anyway? I've written about it twice already for The Tartan. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "What's wrong with writing about porn anyway?" Hey, if this is truly a First Amendment Zone, why not include actual porn? I bet that idea'd fly long, hard, and fast! :) so which Jihad do suicide bombers belong in? Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader Tell us more about the "people blowing up people" part of Jihad. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "Unlike the Christianity articles, not one article on Islam has damned me to Hell nor explained to me how my own viewpoint on Christianity is wrong. Frankly, I find Christianity to be goofy too. Come on....Easter is coming up. Which religion would you go with, the one that has Easter being about some old dude hanging on a cross bringing you down, or the religion that's about candy, bunnies, and fertility rites (that's where the bunnies come from) of Spring? /call me Pagan No Subject Posted by Omar I feel it's my duty to write these articles to show that Muslims ARE indeed opposed to terrorism. As for discussion on suicide bombers - this is dealt with in next week's article. The third article in two weeks (which has already been written) deals with misconceptions. As for whether or not Whim takes tax payer dollars - I have no idea. Go ask Andrew Lent, but I am pretty sure they do not. Thanks Omar No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "Cool. When is Whim going to add "porn" to the movie review section? Oh, and it's "Amendment", not "Ammendment"." I'm sorry but thats a really idiotic analogy! Freedom of speech does not cover obscenity, pornography, or hate speech. Yet it does cover the allowance to print religious material as long as such material is not state endorsement of public religion. Please re-read the first amendment. A few notes. Posted by Patrick "Really? Because by simply looking at this site, I notice that it's on a Radford.edu server, I notice that it's offices are in Heth Hall, and that in the legal section it states that the RU Student Handbook rules are in force here. So how much does Whim pay for use of that server and those offices?" Student fees are respondible for that money. From an Andrew Lent comment from some weeks ago (the comments on the sixth _Christ on Campus_ toon this semester): "On the topic of Church and State . . . RU is a state-funded school, but the money that goes into funding student media comes from 1) advertising and 2) student activity fees in tuition. There is not tax-payer dollars that go into funding student media." "Cool. When is Whim going to add "porn" to the movie review section? Oh, and it's "Amendment", not "Ammendment"." Write something about porn; odds are good we'll run it. That we haven't run anything on porn means only that nobody's written anything. Adam Frazier, the manager of the Ritz section, writes the most articles for that section, especially when it comes to things that aren't comic books. If you have a question about why he hasn't written about porn, perhaps the thing to do is ask. We have had an article dealing with prostitution, though. As for your spelling note, learn to use its and it's properly ("I notice that it's offices are in Heth Hall") before you go talking to someone else about what was likely a typo. You will also note that Whim Internet Magazine is in the US, which means you'll be wanting to tuck the commas and periods in your writing inside quotation marks. Really? the First Amendment doesn't cover porn? Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "Freedom of speech does not cover obscenity, pornography, or hate speech." So you're saying that all of the pornography on the Net is not protected speech? Cite, please. The days are long gone when porn needed to have some kind of social or educational message. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "There is not tax-payer dollars that go into funding student media." so you're saying that Whim pays rent to the University for the use of University property? Are you sure about that? RU is heavily subsidized by the State, and Whim is heavily subsidized by RU. If RU wanted to pull the plug on Whim, it could do so without breaking even a minor sweat. " That we haven't run anything on porn means only that nobody's written anything." So who would get to create the graphic for that? What do you think the response of the University would be if you ran a picture of two naked people actually engaging in a sex act? You can pretend that you're all aloof, and that you are not part of the University, but I'd remind you what you had on your front page for the edition you put out on March 31. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader Yes, pornography is illegal. In fact "Playboy" is considered a literary magazine because it is mostly literature and less than 1/2 pornography. This is why it is allowed to run. I think you are not familiar with the case "Miller vs. California" which ruled that pornography is not protected by the first amendment. The judge simply said "I know it when I see it." The 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography defined pornography as, "Material that is predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal." Miller vs. California the SUPREME COURT said: "This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. . . . The dissenting Justices sound the alarm of repression. But, in our view, to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a 'misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press . . . 'The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political or social changes desired by the people'. . .But the public portrayal of hard-core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the ensuing commercial gain, is a different matter." Thanks for making a complete dumbass out of yourself ;) No Subject Posted by Reality If you are in Islamic countries you cant have porn. Or drink. What do teens do over there? Maybe that's why they blow each other up. They need to chill the fuck out, drink and beer, and watch some porn to calm them down. Reading comprehension much? Posted by Patrick ""There is not tax-payer dollars that go into funding student media." so you're saying that Whim pays rent to the University for the use of University property? Are you sure about that?" *I* directed people to what the Executive Director said. If you have an issue with something like that, I suggest setting up a meeting to discuss it with him. "So who would get to create the graphic for that? What do you think the response of the University would be if you ran a picture of two naked people actually engaging in a sex act?" We've had sexually provocative material used in graphics before. I'm sure you don't need to be told about the concept of nudity or pornographic-to-some images as art forms, yes? Or are you of the school of thought holding the Venus de Milo up as an exampe of pornography? Why don't you say what's really on your mind instead of trying to dance around like this? "You can pretend that you're all aloof, and that you are not part of the University, but I'd remind you what you had on your front page for the edition you put out on March 31." I'd remind you, in turn, that it was a joke. The university has and had no interest in censoring us, nor plans to do so. "I think you are not familiar with the case "Miller vs. California" which ruled that pornography is not protected by the first amendment. The judge simply said 'I know it when I see it.'"
You're welcome to assume as you wish regarding my knowledge of case law or anything else. I wouldn't use it as the foundation for an argument directed at me, but that should be obvious. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "I think you are not familiar with the case "Miller vs. California" which ruled that pornography is not protected by the first amendment." As I'm sure you know, the "I know it when I see it" test is beyond vague. Additionally, Miller dealt with the aggressive marketing of sexually explicit material, in that it was being disseminated in mass mailings to people who didn't ask for it. Furthermore, the idea of "community standards" being violated by sexually explicit material has pretty much been confined to the proverbial "dungheap of History", given the widespread nature of beyond sexually explicit (some would say "gynecological") pornography that is available today. While you are busily trying to spin the facts, you forgot to cite a wide variety of cf cases, including Stanley v. Georgia, which states: "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." -AND- "Given the present state of knowledge, the State may no more prohibit mere possession of obscene matter on the ground that it may lead to antisocial conduct than it may prohibit possession of chemistry books on the ground that they may lead to the manufacture of homemade spirits. We hold that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime." While you're at it, you MIGHT want to check out NY v. Ferber, a child pornography case. In particular, you might read the following: "We note that the distribution of descriptions or other depictions of sexual conduct, not otherwise obscene, which do not involve live performance or photographic or other visual reproduction of live performances, retains First Amendment protection." What is the net result of all of this? You can legally obtain just about any kind of sexually explicit material that you want, provided that it doesn't involve some protected group, like children or animals. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "Yes, pornography is illegal. In fact "Playboy" is considered a literary magazine because it is mostly literature and less than 1/2 pornography." But wait! I thought you said "pornography is illegal". If pornography is indeed illegal, then how could somebody publish a magazine that is "less than 1/2 pornography"? Are you suggesting that a little pornography is OK, but if it's more than 50% porn, it's not? How does that fit with your "pornography is illegal" statement? That's like saying "cocaine is illegal, but since crack is less than 50% cocaine, that's OK". I think you may have a few issues... BTW, Patrick... Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "You're welcome to assume as you wish regarding my knowledge of case law or anything else." that was from a different SAWR, it wasn't me. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "The university has and had no interest in censoring us, nor plans to do so." They may not have the intention or plan to censor Whim, but they certainly retain the ability to do so. All they have to do is decide that they want to pull the plug, and the plug gets pulled. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader Are you suggesting that a little pornography is OK, but if it's more than 50% porn, it's not? Yes. Pornography BY ITSELF is considered obscene material but if pornography is included with a mostly literary or scientific publication it is not considered porn. It is only illegal to posess 2 articles of pornography in one's car. It is legal to watch pornography in your basement, but it is illegal to have it in your car. If you do not believe me I suggest you read the above case-law through even a simple Google search, idiot. ... Posted by Patrick "They may not have the intention or plan to censor Whim, but they certainly retain the ability to do so. All they have to do is decide that they want to pull the plug, and the plug gets pulled." Yeah, and the following could also happen: RU could get a satellite campus. Official Quadfest could magically come back, and with free alcohol. Martin Mash could get found out as an immigrant with a ridiculous last name. A prominent member of student media could advocate for an IQ-based caste system.
You'll note that each of the above is a story a staffer, exec. or guest writer came up with. You have anything to back up the notion that any of the above has a tangible chance of happening? A non-anonymous source would be lovely, but SAWR of the past haven't exactly been in the habit of actually providing sources to back up far-fetched claims. What? Posted by Rick Snee Where are you getting all of these pornography laws? Even in Alabama, where dildos (or devil sticks) are illegal, you can still buy as much porno as you can carry--most devoid of anything literary or scientific. 2 item limit on pornography in your car? This sounds more like a special line in Wal-Mart. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/miller.html Interesting... Posted by Ray "All they have to do is decide that they want to pull the plug, and the plug gets pulled" "Whim Writer" (6:18:57 PM): well, let "reality" know I'm planning on discussing a few things with some of the other execs. "Whim Writer" (6:19:18 PM): and if paper trails or breadcrumbs lead anywhere suspicious, he'll want to make sure his hands are clean. So maybe this isnt getting the whole magazine pulled, but if I understood the gist of it, I think they may be trying to silence at least one person who is commentating. One more thing, I'm not Reality. So can people stop assuming? You aren't going to get either of us to admit it nor are you going to be able to prove something that isnt true. Thanks No Subject Posted by Blake To be honest, I don't see how Radford couldn't pull any of us off of Student Media if they felt inclinded to do so. Myself, Hunter-Kilmer, Erskine, Brown, Lent, Gunter, Selb, Swedberg, Conner, Conner, Jones, Owens, you name anyone who works for Student Media. If they wanted one of us gone for whatever reason (most likely an extreme example), they would find a way to do so. However, Student Media and its organizations almost always (again, a really, really rare example would have to be posed) control hirings and firings. Only on a very, very, very rare occasion would Radford step in, I'd imagine. And I've heard the student fees argument but I'm not sure what exactly that is. Can someone really explain what the heck student fees are and why it was determined that it was those who would fund Student Media? http://withoutrestriction.blogspot.com/ Blake... Posted by Patrick "To be honest, I don't see how Radford couldn't pull any of us off of Student Media if they felt inclinded to do so. Myself, Hunter-Kilmer, Erskine, Brown, Lent, Gunter, Selb, Swedberg, Conner, Conner, Jones, Owens, you name anyone who works for Student Media." While there are those who will criticize this, ... well, I don't care. There are exceedingly few people who can do what Jenny Conner does. There are about as many who can do what Julie does. There are perhaps as many who can do what Meredith Jones does. The list of folks whose skillsets, knowledge and contacts make them just about the best for what they do is rather similar a list to the one above. I might take off a very few names, but student media would be hurting in a big way if any four of the above left. (Say what you want about my abilities as a copy editor, but there are presently not a lot of people using red pens in student media capacities, and two of them graduate before September 2006.)
Amusingly enough, Julie, Jenny and I feigned resignation from all student media positions a week or two ago. It was a fun April Fools' Day prank. Writing up the list detailing our involvement in student media was rather telling. No Subject Posted by Mo cool article Omar. now every person has needs and they all try to satisfy their needs so PORN rocks. No Subject Posted by Unknown Omar, excellent article! I've been reading this excellent article a few times and I'm STILL wondering how porn is related to Jihad. Hmmm, I still can't connect porn to Jihad. Porn & Jihad, hmmmm . . . . No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader Patrick, You're a pompous ass. Didn't anyone ever teach you humility? Even if you were as great as you think you are, saying that you're the shit just makes you smell like it. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "The list of folks whose skillsets, knowledge and contacts make them just about the best for what they do is rather similar a list to the one above." So what you are saying is that if you dont fall in line with these poeple (aka, "the ones who matter") you are expendable? Somehow, I dont think this is how a good magazine should be run. Instead of crying everytime a difference is brought to light, why don't you rejoic we live in such a place where these differences are allowed to occur? No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "Yes. Pornography BY ITSELF is considered obscene material but if pornography is included with a mostly literary or scientific publication it is not considered porn. It is only illegal to posess 2 articles of pornography in one's car. It is legal to watch pornography in your basement, but it is illegal to have it in your car." Cite, please. "Cite, please" means give us a code section from whatever body of law you claim to be quoting. The only bill similar to what you are describing that I've ever heard of involves WATCHING porn in a car on an in-vehicle DVD player that is VISIBLE to people in other vehicles. The biggest problem with your repeated referrals to Miller lies in the community standards area. I suggest you read this , which drove the proverbial spike through Miller's chest. Given the widespread nature and availability of hardcore porn nowadays, only a blithering idiot would still think that porn is illegal. Hell, do a GIS for "porn" on a non-school computer, and you'll get something like 2,600,000 hits. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "To be honest, I don't see how Radford couldn't pull any of us off of Student Media if they felt inclinded to do so." All they'd have to do is close the office and revoke y'alls access to the server, and Whim would cease to be. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "The list of folks whose skillsets, knowledge and contacts make them just about the best for what they do is rather similar a list to the one above. I might take off a very few names, but student media would be hurting in a big way if any four of the above left." You make it sound as if without Student Media, the University would fold. That's simply not true. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "You have anything to back up the notion that any of the above has a tangible chance of happening?" Suppose you put up a very large picture of Goatse Man on the front page, and refused to take it off. Do you really think that the media wouldn't be all over it and the University would allow that to continue? No Subject Posted by Blake "There are exceedingly few people who can do what Jenny Conner does. There are about as many who can do what Julie does. There are perhaps as many who can do what Meredith Jones does. The list of folks whose skillsets, knowledge and contacts make them just about the best for what they do is rather similar a list to the one above. I might take off a very few names, but student media would be hurting in a big way if any four of the above left. (Say what you want about my abilities as a copy editor, but there are presently not a lot of people using red pens in student media capacities, and two of them graduate before September 2006.)" I'm not denying the various skilled people we have in Student Media. We have a bunch of people that are good in the various fields that they do an losing any of them would be a great loss. However, what I was saying is that ultimately, none of us have tenure. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "However, what I was saying is that ultimately, none of us have tenure." Question: Once y'all graduate, do y'all retain your current jobs with Whim? No Subject Posted by Blake ...and keep in mind I wasn't targetting anyone in my other post above, I was just rattling off random names from Student Media. I tried to include people on all sides of the spectrum and in all places of Student Media. blake...... Posted by SAWR "I tried to include people on all sides of the spectrum and in all places of Student Media." really now Blake, I wasnt aware that SMADS had disappeared, and what about ROC-TV? we havent gone anywhere, once again, you think you know everything, yet it shows that you dont even know everything about student media, which you are a part of. quit claiming to know so much for you dont know nearly what you think you do No Subject Posted by Blake Chill man, I said I tried to include people from all areas. I don't know many people at SMADS and haven't been around anyone at ROC-TV to get to know anybody there. If I'm not mistaken I also missed Radio Free Radford and the other radio group that Radford offers. Sorry, I just don't know many people in those respective groups. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader Why is there a debate about porn and free-speech? Last time I checked that was not what the article was about. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader A more important question is why is this in the life section? No Subject Posted by Blake "A more important question is why is this in the life section?" I wondered that too. Isn't this more of a Vent article than a Life article? No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader While I'm sure this opinion will be contested, isn't an article about religion that isn't trying to persuade, but explain, a life article? No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader i agree with sawr it is a life article because he's explaining and not persuading. Terrorism is against Muslims Too! Posted by Omar I was just reading this article: about a suicide bombing at a mosque in Pakistan killing over 50 for celebrating the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Terrorism affects and kills Muslims too, and this is what I have been saying for a while now. No Subject Posted by Reality "Terrorism affects and kills Muslims too, and this is what I have been saying for a while now." So logically, the Iatolla's of the world and the leaders of mosque should probably organize a World conference or something. But then again, if you have people blowing up their own kind to celebrate the birth of their "prophet", maybe it is impossible for them to reach any sort of agreement. No Subject Posted by Omar Actually Reality, they've had many many confrences organized about this. I watched one on Arabic TV myself. So your idea has already happened. No Subject Posted by Reality I congratulate them on that. However, why limit it to Arabic TV? The liberals are your best friends, and they control the media, so logically, you have more access to the media than conservatives (sans Fox News.) If there was enough outcry this would be getting attention because this is obviously of far greater importance then whether a black, female senator actually apologized in her speech for hitting a Capital Security officer. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader Arabic TV confrences because the terrorists speak the Arabic language and all of the major scholars of the Islamic world speak Arabic. There have in fact been English TV confrences in the United States condemning terrorism in the strongest of terms and even ruling an edict against it - it was reported in the media and is spoken about in my next article. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4775588 No Subject Posted by Reality Good, this is a step in the right direction. However, this group is in North America. We dont really have a problem here (except the occasionaly crazies), but for the most part it is pretty tame. Now the ME, the area it is needed, do these people come out and speak like this, or would they be considered heretics? After all, when that dude said he had a problem with Islam, the religious scholars want to cut his head off. The religious scholars still advocate domestic abuse, women being inferior, and let's not forget how and when you may have sex with animals. No Subject Posted by Omar "Now the ME, the area it is needed, do these people come out and speak like this, or would they be considered heretics" - yes in the Middle East area this happens and that is why I said it was on Arabic TV. The biggest greatest Muslim scholars have condemned terrorism in not just one but many confrences. the OIC (largest Muslim body) the text of the OIC which is the largest body of Muslim scholars in the entire world with members from the highest of authorities in Islam declaration against terrorism please read here: Quoting them, it says Pursuant to the tenets of the tolerant Islamic Sharia which reject all forms of violence and terrorism, and in particular specially those based on extremism and call for protection of human rights, which provisions are paralleled by the principles and rules of international law founded on cooperation between peoples for the establishment of peace Omar By the way wife beating, having sex with animals, and believing women are less than men in the sight of God are all prohibited in Islam. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader "By the way wife beating, having sex with animals, and believing women are less than men in the sight of God are all prohibited in Islam." What about Brian's "two finger slap" to force a wife to have sex? No Subject Posted by Blake Omar, I loved your speech at the Forum. You should submit it to Whim for publication if you still have it. It was incredible. Blake's Blog No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader What about the fact that Miss Iran had to give up her beauty title because of death threats? Hmm? And the first and second runners up declined to take her place. So much for joining the civilized world. And now Playboy is not allowed to show skin in Indonesia? give me a break. A tolerant society, my arse. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader ^^^Miss Iran, my bad. (tu-may-toe, tu-mah-toe) No Subject Posted by Omar Blake, If you have the speech please email it to me - I think I put the gist of it into my next few articles Omar I have posted a style error! Posted by Omar This is an automated message. This message will be posted every time someone posts a style error. Please do not post style errors. praise be to Allah |
Inside Whim
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Visit Our Sponsors
|
