Nobel Laureate Wiped From Pakistan's Textbooks As Heretic 445
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Alexander Abad-Santos writes that in any other country, the late Dr. Abdus Salam would be a national hero: he's the Nobel laureate in physics who laid the groundwork for the biggest physics discovery in the past 30 years--the Higgs boson. But that isn't the case in Pakistan, where Salam has been wiped from textbooks and history for not being fundamentalist enough. 'He belonged to the Ahmadi sect, which has been persecuted by the government and targeted by Taliban militants who view its members as heretics,' says Sebastian Abbot. 'His grand unification theory of strong, weak and electromagnetic fields opened the gateway for the discovery of bosons and laid down the basis for this quantum electrodynamics project,' writes Anam Khalid Alvi for Pakistan's Express Tribune. But Pakistan can't celebrate his achievements, since Ahmadis like Salam are and were prevented from 'posing as Muslims,' and can be punished with prison and even death. By contrast, fellow Pakistani physicist A.Q. Khan, who played a key role in developing the country's nuclear bomb and later confessed to spreading nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, is considered a national hero. Khan is a Muslim."
Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, it's all fine, carry on. They keep saying it's a religion of peace and all that. Don't forget that they scrubbed "muslim" off his grave. And other muslims in the region are expected to go out of their way to persecute them.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:2, Interesting)
Lordy, if I had a nickel for every time I'd heard one group or another referred to with derision as, "not real Christians". And another nickel for every time someone tried to get some basic scientific theory removed from school, or shoehorn some religious nonsense into classrooms.
It's certainly not the same, but I'd wager that's just a minor wealth and cultural difference. Give us time.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Funny)
How do you think *I* feel?
I'm of Scottish Ancestry.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Funny)
A true scotsman wouldn't make such a fuss about it...
What is that shit? (Score:3)
Look up Alan Turing and what he was prosecuted for by the SECULAR government.
Look up how the Catholic church has treated scientists throughout its history.
Look up the Protestants in the USofA right now to see how they are trying to hide parts of history that they don't like.
This is more about a party in power trying to re-write history LIKE MOST PARTIES IN POWER DO than it is about evil Muslims being all evil and Muslim.
People in glass houses (Score:3)
Just wait until a US political leader announces that he or she is an atheist, then watch how quickly that person gets erased from political life.
But those crazy religious people over there in Oogaboogastan are totally worse than our crazy religious people. Totally.
Re:People in glass houses (Score:3)
That's a funny example. I wonder what you think would happen in Oogaboogastan if a Muslim political leader announced he or she is an atheist. You think they would get erased from political life? OR erased from life?
I guess you think the crazy religious people over there are just the same as our crazy religious people. You should try reading international news sometime.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget that they scrubbed "muslim" off his grave. And other muslims in the region are expected to go out of their way to persecute them.
This, incidentally, highlights a key point in understanding Wahhabism and Qutbism. However much you think that this particular brand of Islamism is a threat to the West, you're far more likely to be killed, persecuted or generally targeted by them if you're Muslim.
To put it another way, the fact that Al Qaeda and the Taliban is far more of a threat to Islam than to anything else could be considered evidence that (mainstream) Islam is a religion of peace. That's why they hate it so much.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:4, Informative)
280 people killed in the last killed by muslim terrorists between June 23 and June 29th. 1173 people killed by muslim terrorists in June alone. 19,187 terrorist attacks by muslims since 9/11. [thereligionofpeace.com]
Depending on what stats you're using, between 18,000 and 24,000 people die every year from lightening strikes. Depending on how busy the "religion of peace" is they can exceed that in a year, they did that two years ago.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, nice choice of source material. I'm sure that's entirely fair and well-considered.
The important part is that, being in a shit-hole place with shit education where everyone has been miserably poor for centuries has much more to do with you being a violent scumbag than the particular batshit superstitions you subscribe to.
Meanwhile, any muslim you meet in the states is almost certainly a non-violent person. At least on percentage with christians or atheists.
But yeah, it's all insanity and we need to eradicate religion in all forms for the good of our species.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Interesting)
being in a shit-hole place with shit education where everyone has been miserably poor for centuries has much more to do with you being a violent scumbag than the particular batshit superstitions you subscribe to.
actually, terrorists tend on average to be relatively wealthy and well-educated, from relatively well-to-do countries [economist.com]
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, any muslim you meet in the states is almost certainly a non-violent person.
Incidentally, that's also true of the Islamic world. If you are a Muslim, you are far more likely to be the victim of an Islamist terrorist than you are to be an Islamist terrorist or sympathiser thereof. That's partly because Islamist terrorists mostly target Muslims.
The "religion of peace" also spawned the Arab Spring.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:3)
If you are referring to the Muslim Brotherhood, think again. Mostly it was every day folk getting fed up by comparing what they can see from the intertubes and satellite TV vs. what they experience at home. The only organized resistance in most of those countries does tend to be the Muslim Brotherhood but they have been mostly going with the flow hoping to gain political power when the dust settles. And the jury is still out as to whether allowing the MB to run the show means true freedom (freedom of religion, freedom of women, freedom for minorities, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from the MB, etc.).
Islam believes power comes from Allah and Democracy holds power comes from the People.
Now for my own bias is that this conflict (Allah and Democracy) is unreconciliable. And pointing to Turkey doesn't cut it for me, the Islamists in that country are slowing taking control of everything. Given them another 10 years and their control will be complete and irrevocable.
I also believe that MB will only shield the people from their true dictatorial nature long enough to put a new straight-jacket on the Muslims dumb enough to believe them. After that, there will be no true freedom for the people to choose a different political party. Minorities will be abused, un-Sunni sects will be discriminated against or forced out of the home countries. The economics MB seem to profess is a brand of state control of anything big enough that to control it means to keep a chunk of power. The Arabs will rue the day they let MB's nose under the tent.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, nice choice of source material. I'm sure that's entirely fair and well-considered.
Yeah, well if you looked at the source material. You'd have seen that the source material is taken directly from...dun, dun, dun da, ta-da-ta...the news media. So unless you think that Reuters, AFI, AJE(Arab), and so on have this incredible bias to not report on the news. You're just being an idiot.
Let's not forget, that while you're parroting your view on the "almost certainly" that a dozen muslims were arrested in the UK for planning terrorist attacks on the Olympics. And before that, 30 more were arrested for grooming young girls and prostituting them in slave like conditions. And in the US itself, you had a few cases of sudden Jihad syndrome, in Dearborne, where some tried to run some Christians over for having differing points of view(does it matter they were being assholes? not really.) And let's not forget Ft. Hood either, that one is still on-going, but despite what the media keeps telling you he was a muslim, and it was another homegrown terrorist attack.
But let me ask you this, between Christians, Jews and Muslims can you tell me the difference between the three? The first two had reformations and keep their crazies in line. The last one actively persecutes their reformists as we see today, and as we see today, people are still supporting the crazies, and are railing against the reformers. I think you have more serious issues.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:4, Interesting)
280 people killed in the last killed by muslim terrorists between June 23 and June 29th. 1173 people killed by muslim terrorists in June alone. 19,187 terrorist attacks by muslims since 9/11. [thereligionofpeace.com]
19,187 separate attacks? Can we get a citation for this? Or some methodology? While thereligionofpeace.com seems totally unbiased, I'd like to know where that number comes from. If 11 years (or so) have passed since 9/11/01, that's 1744 and a quarter attacks per year, or 4 and three quarters attacks per day, not taking time off for Ramadan, for 11 years. Just seems like a lot is all.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:3)
19,187 separate attacks? Can we get a citation for this? Or some methodology?
4.75 attacks per day in the world is a lot? Hardly.
You'll need to follow up on this yourself, but just to get you started.. . . .
If memory serves me, there are at least 20 countries experiencing either an Islamist insurgency and/or terrorism include: India, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Yemen, and others.
577 glorious pages of incidents at Iraq Body Count [iraqbodycount.org] (The observant among you will notice that attacks against Iraqis haven't stopped despite the US pullout, so no, the war didn't end.
Taliban Attacks 100 Times per Day [townhall.com]
From 2010 - Afghanistan: 57 Insurgent Attacks a Day [juancole.com] (the insufferable)
That is only two countries out of the many marked by Islamist violence. What about Thailand?
Terrorism in South Thailand [asianowblog.com]
That doesn't include Iran's attempts to kill Israeli diplomats in Thailand [ynetnews.com], as they have in various other nations in the last several months.
Pity the Yezhidi.
The Vanishing Yezidi of Iraq [nyu.edu]
Of course there are plenty more mass casualty attacks. I'll leave that as an exercise for you. You could check out the Bali bombing, the 7/7 bombing, the Madrid bombing, plenty of markets being bombed in Iraq.
The US has been fortunate in that it has been able to foil many attempts by would-be Jihadis, but sadly not all, including the "workplace violence" of Major Hasan at Fort Hood (13 dead, 31 wounded). (May Justice be done upon him.)
Just a few recent reports from the US:
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012 [fbi.gov]
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
This from an anti-Muslim hate site. No supporting citations to their numbers, but they promise to "supply sources upon request". Instead of each item linking to some citation, they link to other pages on the anti-Muslim hate site that says the exact same thing as the item.
Did you know that I'm the Emperor Napoleon? I can supply proof upon request. Instructions on how to request that proof can be found at http:\\morequestionsthananswers.con.
There are plenty of reasons to be oppose violent Muslim extremists without having to resort to that kind of baloney. If you were really trying to make a valid point in good faith, Mashiki, you could have done so. Instead, you expose only yourself.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:3)
This from an anti-Muslim hate site. No supporting citations to their numbers, but they promise to "supply sources upon request"
You know tha'ts funny, because you can source it yourself. Go take the last 30 attacks, and you'll find every single one of them in the new media, from Reuters, to AFI. Go on, I'll wait.
I've made my point, the point is, like many other people you're ignoring the blood that's being written on the ground today like many other people. And in the worst case, like many liberals you're burying your head in the sand, how's that whole "let's slaughter all the christians in Darfur" thing going on these days? Some nice Muslim purges going on I hear. Wait...not news, they're Christian. How about that blogger from the Maldives, who had his throat slashed because he wanted more political and religious freedom? Hear about that one? Probably not, he's on the run and seeking asylum. And of course you're welcome to believe whatever you want. How about those no-go zones in France, Norway and Sweden that the police no longer patrol, because they're now ethnic religious enclaves, and they want to avoid riots.
So at the end of the day, you're free to think whatever you want. But the reality is, you're just burying your head in the sand like many other people, while believing that the religion of peace is a religion of peace. While members run around blowing up, people, things, strapping bombs on children, refusing to follow the laws of the land wherever they go. Feel free to look in the US with various mega mosque projects--I believe eric allen bell had a recent story on that one, and is still doing a documentary on it. Wonder what made that hardwing leftwing guy go full-on anti-muslim as you would put it? Why not go be a Jew for a day in Toulouse, France and come back. If you survive the attacks by the muslims. I'll wait on that one too. Well, you probably will, they're only beating people nearly unconscious. Wait, let me guess...that's a *cultural* problem. As for exposing myself? Nah. I'll stand behind what I say.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be interesting to know how many of the people killed were Muslims themselves. I'd guess a majority in any year. If a bomber blows up a couple dozen police recruits in an Iraqi city, we chalk those up as deaths due to Islamic terrorism, which strictly speaking they are, but they could just as easily chalked up a civil war deaths.
There are 2.6 million Muslims in the US. That's a lot of people. If, say, 10% were what our media like to call "jihadis", that'd be 260,000 people living here who want to kill us because we're not Muslims. If 1% of those jihadis made at least one attempt each year, that'd be at least 2,600 domestic Islamic terror attacks. It'd be easy for them too. They live here, they know our weaknesses, often can pass as non-muslim if need be -- that's not counting their recent converts of European ancestry (we know converts are usually among the most zealous in any religion). They don't need Al Qaeda to teach them how to make bombs when they have the Internet.
So how many people in the US have been killed since 9/11 by this fifth column? So far as I can see, none. If Muslim==terrorist, there should be thousands of people killed every year here. Probably tens of thousands killed a year. Why isn't anyone keeping track?
How low does suspicion have to go before you chuck it out the window? 99.99%? Well that 1 in 10,000. Applied to the 2.6 million Muslims in the US, that's 260 American Muslim terrorists. That's almost surely too high, given the lack of any deaths in the US from home-grown Muslim terrorists, but let's go with that. Your chance of running into a Muslim terrorist here in the US is about the same (under these unfavorable assumptions) as bumping into a retired NASA astronaut.
The idea that Islam somehow makes someone inclined to terror does not hold up if you control for circumstances (e.g. look at American Muslims).
Re:please remind me the religion of Germany + Russ (Score:3)
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, NOAA [noaa.gov] has been having a "war on lightning" for some time now. And they can filter money into their buddies' pockets - do you think that S.A.M.E radios are free? Does it cost nothing to build a storm shelter?
Deaths due to lightning, annually: 24,000 [lightningsafety.com].
(As NOAA will tell you - if you can hear thunder, you could get zapped - get your ass inside and stay in until 30 minutes past the last thunderclap. Thank you.)
Deaths due to terrorism: varies wildly [economist.com]. Pick an arbitrary year, like 2010, and your "more" is a factor of 3, approximately. Some years, it's only a factor of 2. Given all the deaths this year in Iraq, I suspect that the figures will be large.
Ridiculous comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
People can handle accidental, isolated deaths. Yes, someone dies, but there is no malicious force that caused it.
People can handle mass-death less easily, even when it's accidental (or not intentional). But things like the sinking of the Titantic, air disasters, bus accidents, and similar still disproportionately capture attention.
People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system. Yes, foreign policy, resources, economics, geopolitics, and myriad other nuances are involved here, but it really is that simple at its core.
The reason there ever was a "war on terror" isn't to "funnel money to corporate buddies" — it's because, to be blunt, we don't put up with that shit, even if our response is imperfect — not to mention that Europe and the West has enjoyed US defense-by-proxy for over a half-century. The fact that war is an economic driver is incidental (even if it can be argued to be important in its own way). But make no mistake: when US policy makers of any political stripe make the decision to go to war, the thinking isn't, "Hey, this can line the pockets of my corporate buddies!! Lulz!"
But I know that you and many other readers here are cynical (and ignorant) enough to actually twist a story about Pakistan and Islam into, yet again in true topsy-turvy bizarro-world style, how the US is evil. (Same thing happened with the recent Syria Wikileaks story [slashdot.org].) It might be amusing if it weren't so predictable, pathetic, and shameful.
Re:Ridiculous comparison (Score:2)
People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system.
Well... Some (many?, most?) cannot accept that. For others, it seems to be their way of life - that's very sad.
Re:Ridiculous comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
People can handle accidental, isolated deaths. Yes, someone dies, but there is no malicious force that caused it. ...
People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system.
I find sporadic intentional, malicious deaths to be far more acceptable than widespread preventable accidental deaths. Any decent human being would feel the same. The important thing is to minimize the loss of human life. Whether there's intentionality behind the deaths is irrelevant.
The problem is, most people aren't decent human beings and care more about being slighted by foreigners than about actually saving lives.
The reason there ever was a "war on terror" isn't to "funnel money to corporate buddies" â" it's because, to be blunt, we don't put up with that shit
What's sad is that you probably actually believe that. If that were actually true, we'd have actual reasons for going to war, instead of flimsy pretexts.
e.g. Afghanistan, we're there to get Bin Laden, but once we get there we stop looking for him and waste years spending money for nothing. Who does that benefit besides military contractors?
e.g. Iraq. What reason is there to invent a non-existant link between Saddam Hussein and OBL, and hype up non-existent WMDs based on evidence that was known to be false?
Why did we go intervene in Lybia and haven't done much yet in Syria? One's an oil producing nation, the other isn't.
You've made a bold assertion in that "we don't put up with that shit". What sort of mechanisms are in place to prevent that shit from happening? If a well connected vice president actually decided to go to war in order to benefit his cronies, how does the system prevent that? What reason is there to believe that ANY US politician makes ANY decision without considering how it would profit their friends and campaign contributors?
Re:Ridiculous comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
" But make no mistake: when US policy makers of any political stripe make the decision to go to war, the thinking isn't, "Hey, this can line the pockets of my corporate buddies!! Lulz!"
Well actually there was LBJ, he was a pretty successful war profiteer on Bell helicopter, General Dynamics fighters and his buddy ran Brown and Root. Brown and Root did very profitable general contracting for the military in Vietnam.
Brown and Root became Kellog Brown and Root and ended up owned by Halliburton which Dick Cheney used to war profiteer in Iraq 30 years later. The second Iraq war turned in to one massive exercise in war profiteering for people well connected with the Republican party. The U.S. would fly in plane loads of 100 dollar bills and they would be made to disappear. How else do you explain the Bush administrations overwhelming urge to invade Iraq. There was no actual rational reason for it that wasn't a lie.
War profiteering is as old as war, Dave. Are you actually that naive or do you not even believe the stuff you're writing anymore.
Profiteering may not be the prime reason for a war but it sure is a huge fringe benefit for the well connected.
Re:Ridiculous comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system. Yes, foreign policy, resources, economics, geopolitics, and myriad other nuances are involved here, but it really is that simple at its core.
While there is some irrational hatred at play, the fact remains that the US and its allies have been overthrowing governments, propping up dictators, and generally fucking with many countries in the Middle East for over 50 years now. I'd say it adds up to a bit more than nuance.
The reason there ever was a "war on terror" isn't to "funnel money to corporate buddies" — it's because, to be blunt, we don't put up with that shit, even if our response is imperfect — not to mention that Europe and the West has enjoyed US defense-by-proxy for over a half-century. The fact that war is an economic driver is incidental (even if it can be argued to be important in its own way). But make no mistake: when US policy makers of any political stripe make the decision to go to war, the thinking isn't, "Hey, this can line the pockets of my corporate buddies!! Lulz!"
The reasons for the War on Terror are myriad. Many players are interested in it for their own reasons. For the defense contractors and the banks, the purpose of the War on Terror is very much to make money. That $500 billion the Pentagon spends every year has to go into someones' pocket. And the debt to finance the war has to come from somewhere. Not much gets done in America that doesn't have a profit motive.
But I know that you and many other readers here are cynical (and ignorant) enough to actually twist a story about Pakistan and Islam into, yet again in true topsy-turvy bizarro-world style, how the US is evil. (Same thing happened with the recent Syria Wikileaks story [slashdot.org].) It might be amusing if it weren't so predictable, pathetic, and shameful.
On the world stage it's never about good and evil. It's about power and control; who has it and who wants it. It's as simple as that.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
More people get killed by lightning in a couple of months than from terrorism in the last few years.
Where is the war on lightning?
Oh... you can't funnel money to corporate buddies if you have a war on lightning.
This isn't about "terrorism". The routine killing, rape and subjugation of non-Muslims in muslim countries is "business as usual". Its only when they do something to Westerners that they say it is an "act of Terrorism" by a "tiny minority"
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:2)
This I learned: lightning rods are part of a corporate conspiracy fueled by irrational fear of "electricity from the sky!" and designed to make Americans pay money for little pieces of metal.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:3)
So only Westerners qualify as people? If you read the news, there's terrorist attacks around the world on a weekly basis.
But since that doesn't effect you, it must not count - else you'd have realized that terrorist related deaths are much higher.
Also what constitutes terrorism? To me it's any act by a social conservative to scare others into behaving in a manner they deem fit.
As such, acid attacks and rapes of non-veiled women are terrorism, honor killings are terrorism, mutilating or killing school children for trying to get an education is terrorism. And what of the gang killings in Mexico directed at bloggers or people who say not nice things about the cartels on their facebook walls? That's terrorism.
Everyday it seems we see examples of people using violence to scare people from speaking out, living liberated lifestyles or educating themselves.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Funny)
What's Bing?
Its a heretical search engine. Don't follow the path of brimstone and eternal damnation, stick to god's one true search engine. We of /. are the Mighty GOOGs chosen ones anyway.
(Just wanted to answer in character w/ the article)
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, as a geek I'm finding that the GOOG is letting me down more and more.
My son, I feel your pain, you need to restore your faith in the one, true, mighty, GOOG. Perhaps were you wantonly coveting your neighbors iPhone instead of bowing in reverence to our masters Android come down from heaven? The Mighty GOOG knows your thoughts, and shame on you. Now when our elders and ancestors suffered a shortage of mailbox diskspace quota, did not our holy master deliver us gmail, raining down disk space from the data CLOUD in the sky? Did not his mightyness roll back the google WAVE on his very command? Does he not make a data CLOUD rain RSS updates of /.s stories into his mighty goog Reader? Now step over here and let me make the sign of the goog PLUS on your forehead and sin no more. Say 50 www.google.com's while meditating on not falling into following the evil minon of shiney rounded rectanges, St Jobs, or St Gates of the UEFI apocalypse, and I suspect your images.google.com searches for the mighty cavern of goatse will once again be successful. So help us, as we kneel toward MountainView in supplication.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.google.com/webhp?q=Bing [google.com]
(Hit the I'm feeling lucky button if you like... if not, all your answers can be found via Google!)
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:2)
An annoying cartoon lizard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Angry_Beavers_characters#Characters [wikipedia.org]
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google doesn't recognize him either. There's no doodle of him. But if you search for him on Bing, you find all the relevant info.
I think this google search [google.co.uk] shows that there are lies, damn lies, and Microsoft fanboiism.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:2)
Does bing have a doodle of him?
I bet they both just have search results for him.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:3)
You said
In English, the word "but" is normally used to denote a contrast, so your wording is clearly designed to give the impression that Bing is superior to Google in the amount or relevance of information provided.
This certainly is a false impression, wouldn't you agree?
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually lightning fatalities are about 24,000 a year.
http://www.vaisala.com/Vaisala%20Documents/Scientific%20papers/Annual_rates_of_lightning_fatalities_by_country.pdf [vaisala.com]
The fact that you could have just used google to find that instead of trying to spread vitriol says a lot about you.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually lightning fatalities are about 24,000 a year.
http://www.vaisala.com/Vaisala%20Documents/Scientific%20papers/Annual_rates_of_lightning_fatalities_by_country.pdf [vaisala.com]
The fact that you could have just used google to find that instead of trying to spread vitriol says a lot about you.
Thor does not claim to be peaceful.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:3, Interesting)
Next up, you'll be defending the reintroduction of sex slaves [algemeiner.com] in Egypt...
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Allah is not the only god in whose name atrocities have been committed and the Koran is not the only poorly written, poorly translated, self-contradictory book purportedly containing the One True God's Word that has been used to justify atrocities. I would agree that religions are usually silly and find it laughable that someone might single out Islam as the silliest one. Christianity -- with so much lip service given to peace and forgiveness -- is every bit as silly. Anyone remember the Crusades?
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Interesting)
Might have been helpful to read the rest of the conversation about how most of the other religions (Christianity especially) have learned from their mistakes.
Furthermore, nobody asserted Islam was the "silliest" of the bunch -- just the most lethal to non-believers.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:3)
Wait, your argument is that fighting against religious extremism is actually a form of religious extremism? That makes no sense. By your logic you can never have a non-religiously motivated conflict with religious people. That's the same crap religious zealots spout when they claim that every law that people try to apply to them is religious discrimination. They just can't fathom that there are *other reasons* that people don't like them or their behaviors.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
The war in Iraq was never a crusade, and "Operation Just Crusade" is never existed. (Feel free to prove otherwise.)
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:4, Informative)
I compared the United States to Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked, they are both countries. What's more, and somewhat interestingly, the United States sells an enormous amount of weaponry to Saudi Arabia and doesn't really give them a hard time about the human rights issues. We are complicit in the hegemony of the Saudi Royal family more than any other country in the world. One might say the US and SA are thick as thieves. My comparison of the two is meant as an analog to the religious issue because the United States is arguably the most Christian nation in the world and Saudi Arabia the most Islamic. The US is somewhat more diverse religion-wise, but is predominantly Christian. I believe the comparison is a fair one and the similarities (and political ties) are too extensive to be dismissed so easily.
But, if you want to get technical, you have to admit that US Citizens can also be killed by the US government without any trial whatsoever [latimes.com]. If you are not a US Citizen but happen to live in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen or Sudan or a variety of other places the United States has targeted, you can also be killed there via drone attack. Your flimsy assertion that one can only be killed "primarily by lethal injection" conveniently ignores the entire scope of death dealt out by agents of the United States government. Also, if you insist on focussing arbitrarily on the means of death meted out by our judicial system in the United States, then you must acknowledge that you can opt to be killed by lethal injection, hanging, electric chair, or firing squad in various US states. There is also some debate as to how painful (or terrifying) death by lethal injection might be. Until recently in Arkansas, the components of this deadly cocktail were determined at the discretion of the Department of Corrections and not by any objective standard of human decency or medical expertise.
The war in Iraq was never a crusade
What the hell does that mean to you exactly? The word "crusade" is infested with conflicting connotations. Most connotations I can discern seem entirely apt. I would argue it is remarkably similar to the original Crusades both in its rationale, its conception, and its results.
Re:Ah don't worry... (Score:3, Insightful)
>you end up with millions of people enslaved to a system that they can't escape that treats women, minorities, and non-muslims as second class citizens
That sounds completely indistinguishable from fundamentalist Christian conservatives in the United States today - Santorum style. The ONLY difference is that in the United States they are constrained by two factors: a constitution that prohibits religious interference with the law, and the fact that they can't ever get elected. They are a massive group - just not big ENOUGH.
Even so - Rush Limbaugh style conservatives love to call women whores for using birth control.
I fail to see how Islam is in any way unique.
All religions have their crazy fundamentalists and they are almost ALWAYS a minority but whenever those fundamentalists happen to get into positions of power - they abuse them according to their fundamentalism. Islam currently has some countries where this is the case.
The major reason the west went for secular states however is because EXACTLY THE SAME THING used to happen there until we did.
If you let religions dictate laws, you get atrocities, it doesn't matter WHICH religion. Hell the Budhists of Tibet used to practise a form of mass slavery and call it "karma" and Budhism is probably the most rational and peaceful religion ever concieved.
Re:Both sides are wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
Clearly you have never read the Bible or the KKK's hate literature. There's considerable overlap - look up the Heresy of Peor, for example. God rewards Phinehas and all his seed for the extrajudicial murder of Zimri, who has committed miscegenation. Or check out the Prophet Ezra's viewpoint on race-mixing - the KKK is right in line.
At some points in US history, the KKK has run governments - such as the Indiana state government in 1925, for instance.
The only "crazy" they invented on their own was the curious idea that Christianity wasn't founded by Jews.
Amen to that, brother.
Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying ALL Muslims follow the Taliban? Would any of you have a problem with saying ALL Atheists are baby killers?
You are setting up a nice straw man there. Not all Muslims follow the Taliban, but all Muslims follow a cdoctrine that says that non-Muslims must be killed or accept inferior status. Read the Qur'an.
Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! (Score:4, Informative)
The Bible has it's fair share of questionable text [skepticsan...dbible.com]. So...to be fair, it all depends on who reads and teaches the document. If you read any book as the truth and fact, you are in for a very dark world. One thing I've learned about religion in general is that you have to take the words with a grain of skepticism to even start to be a rational person. (I've chosen to flow on the side of non-belief myself, but whatever.)
all those crazy old religions... (Score:3)
The most important difference between say, christians and muslims is one of those groups still reads it to the letter today. Christianity started getting over that after the crusades. Islam is still living in what, the 600's or so?
Most religions started with tenants built around conquering other religious groups. Back then it was simply a matter of survival. Most religions either did it or were conquered and destroyed as a result. What we have left now are the "winners", but a few of them are still fighting, with Islam containing the most public, radical, and fundamental batch of nuts of the bunch. And they aren't the least bit concerned about behaving like 600AD barbarians to do it. And the rest of the world tends to frown on that now. These "fundamentalist clerics" have a lot in common with vile little dictators that are using religion as a means of creating power and influence. I can't help but wonder what percentage of them is a real religious leader and what percentage are just taking advantage of their religion and their influence.
And most of these religions' holy books flat out say that the world belongs to them and everyone else can either join or it's ok to kill them. That wasn't meant for the modern world. I have zero respect for that attitude now. Anyone that agrees with a book that says it's their god-given right to force me to do something or kill me for not doing it deserves that Hellfire comin' down their cave.
Unfortunately it gives the rest of the more modern/moderate/reasonable followers a really bad rep. I think right now the fastest way to get discriminated against in the US would be to make your Islamic religion known. Moreso than race etc. A lot of that is the govt P.R. engine at work, but you can't place all the blame on them. You're just going to get a lot of bad bias when you're associated with nuts that like to blow up large groups of uninvolved innocents, particularly from the part of that pool of innocents that would prefer to keep breathing. The moderates need to do something about their fundamentalist relations. Either smack some sense into them or split. The extremists are the one to blame for the bias, not the extremists' targets. All I hear are the moderates complaining about the public grouping them together. They are a group. They are a part of the group, and they either need to do something, affect change within the group, or leave it. "Guilt-by-association" is impossible to dodge. So far of all the religious conversations I've had with followers of Islam, every one of them still thinks the bad light that shines on them is 100% the fault of the world, they don't see the root of the problem, and aren't in any hurry to do anything about it.
Re:Ah don't worry...ALL! (Score:2)
Would any of you have a problem with saying ALL Atheists are baby killers?
I can only speak for myself, but ... Veal... delicious Veal Parmesagn... Oh you probably meant human babies. No, no they don't make good Parmesagn at all.
Soon to be -1... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's coming soon to the U.S. Don't think they want this sort of thing to happen to Texas schoolbooks.
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:2)
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:2)
The US isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. There are limits to what the majority can get. Slavery isn't coming back without a constitutional amendment, and that's hard enough to get for things most people think are probably reasonable policies but don't want in the Constitution itself.
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:2)
The US isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.
No, it's a liberal democracy!
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:3)
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:2)
This is where adhering to the Constitution would be cool. It would stop something like this as a simple majority in its tracks. You'd need 75% to push it through.
But years of a liberal interpretation of the Constitution as a "living" document means that all we need is 51% in Congress and a majority of nine judges to make it happen.
So, for a gay liberal who cheered the recent opinion on Obamacare, remember that when you're up for execution for being homosexual.
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:2)
So, for a gay liberal who cheered the recent opinion on Obamacare, remember that when you're up for execution for being homosexual.
What about us straight people who cheer the opinion?
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:3, Informative)
It's coming soon to the U.S. Don't think they want this sort of thing to happen to Texas schoolbooks.
Texas, Kansas and perhaps another few states. Radical fundamentalism isn't just for Muslims and it's no stranger to setting progress back throughout history.
OK, the moons I saw around Jupiter were going around the Earth, too.
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:2)
Indeed - extremes are generally bad when it comes to people. Religious beliefs are not exempt from this.
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wondered how long it would take for someone to try to take the attention off the matter at hand and turn it around on the US. Wow. Just wow.
Very common on Slashdot (Score:3)
I think it is partially just people who are very self centered. They need everything to be about their lives. So when there is a story about things happening in other nations, they have to try to find a way to spin it around to be about the US, so it is about them. There is a story about something, good or bad, in another nation and they have to start up with how it is or is not like that in the US and so on and so forth. They continually steer the discussion back to themselves.
The other part is for some people, many of whom hang out on Slashdot, it is trendy to hate the US and to feel like they are "oppressed". So everything needs to become about how bad the US is. Another country does something bad? Try to find a way to say the US does the same thing. Another country does something good? Whine about how the US does not do that. Everything is turned in to how the US is bad because that is what they wish it to be.
All in all it equals a situation where any story about another country has people making posts to try and show the Us in a bad light, rather than discussing the story.
Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! (Score:2, Flamebait)
It is nothing but ignorance to conflate Radical Islam with Evangelical Christianity.
Yeah, we get that it fits your "All Religion Is Evil / All Religion is Anti-Science" prejudiced screed, but it's just not a valid comparison. All you're doing is trying to rile people up and/or get them to march to the drumbeats of your own bigotry, like so many Evangelical Atheists enjoy doing.
Comparing the Extremism the Fundamentalist Islamists get away with around the world to whatever drama the Fundamentalist Christians try to perpetrate is -- really -- just ridiculous. To do so means you either have an agenda, or lack education. Which is it with you?
Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! (Score:3)
Christians used to be this bad and they're getting worse again. They are becoming increasingly insulated from other ways of thinking and increasingly bigoted. This is in the US, of course, but I have no hope that it won't spread elsewhere
So yeah, Christianity is a lot better now, and Islam is still the worst, but the trend isn't good.
Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! (Score:2)
So bombing is different if the victims are abortion doctors?
The only difference is degree.
Both of these are groups that oppress women and support the use of violence to spread their own flavor of crazy.
Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! (Score:3)
So No true scotsman is how you choose to respond? Pretty telling, when you can't even come up with a better line than that.
In the middles ages islam was new, and actually far ahead of being civilized of european christianity. Where do you think we got 0?
Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really - Just a matter of degree, limited solely by how much power each group has over their respective countries... AIDS sucks more than the flu, but you don't really want to catch either of them.
But hey, I hear ya - It makes perfect sense to devote the full resources of the US government to hashing out whether or not whores... er... "young women"... should have the right to autonomy over their own bodies when it comes to reproductive health. Certainly, no fine upstanding Fundies would suggest beating people to death [rawstory.com] just because their god whispers sweet, sweet nothings to them in the dark...
Religion is a disease, which any sane person would seek to cure ASAP.
Re:Oh, Please! Don't Be So Globally Provincial! (Score:3)
Having been raised Christian, I would like to agree that my inherited religion is the nobler one, but I feel it is necessary to point out that a) there is a lot of equally ludicrous effort in the United States [q.v. young-earth creationism, Sarah Palin who does the speaking-in-tongues bit, anti-evolution activities, etc.] and b) supposedly Christian nations have perpetrated warfare and genocide on other people at the behest of their holiest teachings [q.v. Deuteronomy chapters 7 and 20, The Crusades, and the invasion of Iraq]. Conflating the two is not ridiculous at all. On the contrary. As an exercise in introspection, it should trigger some soul searching in terms of teaching and foreign policy.
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:3)
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:3)
or exaggerate the religiosity of other founding fathers ( http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/Lies%20for%20Jesus%20and%20Christiaity.htm [comcast.net]
This page contains numerous internet lies, the primary one being the fake quotes about Lincoln not being Christian and denying the bible. The only sources for that quote are pages like this one. There are no credible sources for most of the crap on this page except other angry anti-Christian web pages. It's like a circle of perpetual, meaningless crap that endures through the sheer fury of those slinging it.
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:3)
Whaddaya mean, coming soon?
Thomas Jefferson removed from Texas history standards [nytimes.com]
The reason they decided to de-emphasize Jefferson was that he coined the phrase "separation of church and state". They replaced him with St Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone.
Re:Soon to be -1... (Score:3)
The reason they decided to de-emphasize Jefferson was that he coined the phrase "separation of church and state".
Well, that's the reported excuse. Journalists...
I suspect the real reason for the hatred towards Jefferson is the famous Jefferson Bible. Jefferson and his bible has gotta be a kick in the nuts for the mythological belief in the founding fathers being hard core fundamentalists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible [wikipedia.org]
Faith is a poison, when you use it as one (Score:4)
Rather a shame the way people can't respect one faith from another.
The dose makes the poison (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I am an atheist, but it seems that low-levels of religious belief seem to do most people little harm and some good and at least in smaller communities seem to provide a certain amount of greater good & charity which might otherwise go missing.
It would be nice if the people involved could just enjoy getting together for the sake of getting together and do charitable works because helping people is usually the right thing to do without shame-based moralizing and all the hocus pocus, but human experience seems to suggest a more Hobbesian outcome without some kind of organizational direction.
Meow (Score:2, Informative)
I've always thought the Ahmadis (there's actually two Ahmadi sects) are appealing to Western converts. They talk a lot about pluralism, etc, and seem to mean it. Alas, they aren't quite as progressive as I'd like on LGBT rights. A lot of their commitment to pluralism probably comes from being persecuted in traditionally Muslim countries.
Backwards country (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of backwards country would modify their curriculum to fit religious ideals?
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/03/12/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/ [aolnews.com]
Re:Backwards country (Score:2)
Re:Backwards country (Score:3)
What kind of backwards country would modify their curriculum to fit religious ideals?
Good [wikipedia.org] question [wikipedia.org].
Re:Backwards country (Score:3)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html [washingtonpost.com]
I was being sarcastic, sure. But my point was that we need to use examples like the story to make sure our own house is clean.
Re:Backwards country (Score:5, Insightful)
But hey, at least you got your +5, America Bashing mod
It's called not being hypocritical.
It would be hypocritical to sit around laughing arrogantly at Pakistan, while ignoring the fact that right here at home we can do similar things as well.
It may not be politically correct point out uncomfortable things about our own country, and you may get all offended and call it "America Bashing," but it is reality.
I am laughing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I am laughing (Score:3)
Instead, the poor guy realized that he won't ever gain the notoriety of that other, more religious, scientist, and full of anger shouted:
KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!
More proof as if we needed any (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More proof as if we needed any (Score:4, Interesting)
I couldn't agree more.
Yet there is one faction of our government here in the US that has played the religion card since the "Southern Strategy". Barry Goldwater decried that they would never be rid of them.
And so far he's been more than right - it's only gotten worse.
The percentage of people in the US who are creationists is always polled in the high 40s. We're not that far away from Pakistan. While it may seem like a good political idea to pander to religious nutters, all we have to do to look at what would happen without the "wall of separation between Church & State", as Jefferson put it in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, is to look to the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, et al. And if you listen to many Republicans, especially the ones who are dominionists and members of The Family, they're not that far off from the Taliban. Don't forget, there were *four* Republican candidates running for President that "God" told them to run. Fortunately all 4 dropped out. God's got a sense of humour, apparently.
But the fact remains, we had 4 wild-eyed religious whackos running for President and they were all treated seriously. That was unprecedented. And the broader Republican caucus is full of moronic bible thumpers.
Barry Goldwater spins in his grave at high RPM. I am working on wrapping his dust and the dust of Roger Williams and William Penn in coils of wire to generate electricity and solve the energy crisis. I just need grant or VC money.
--
BMO
Re:More proof as if we needed any (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they? Looking at history, all the most successful government before the 20th century had implied or official state religions. And even in the mundane, there's plenty of examples such as Pre-Communist Russia, which was officially Orthodox and where the church had a great deal of power, wasn't the most successful government. But at least it didn't murder tens of millions of its own citizens.
Re:More proof as if we needed any (Score:4, Informative)
You mean like Great Britain's theocracy?
It hasn't been a practical theocracy for a while, but the Queen is the head of the state church and the Church of England has representation in the House of Lords.
[there that will stir things up a bit]
Re:More proof as if we needed any (Score:3)
"Religious" governments are ALWAYS a bad idea.
Especially those that finance terrorism and have a nuclear arsenal. So why the hell are we still allies with these fuckers ?
We have met the enemy, [wikipedia.org] and he is us. [wikipedia.org]
Not grand unification (Score:5, Informative)
It was electroweak unification. Important enough.
(So far, all attempts at grand unification have failed, including Einstein's.)
Re:Not grand unification (Score:2)
Wasn't Einstein the one who proposed the concept of a grand unified theory? The first person to try should hardly be expected to succeed at a monumental task. Shoulders of giants, and all that.
This is EXCELLENT news!!! (Score:2)
Anything they can do to unwind the clock several hundreds of years is great for the rest of us. Hopefully they'll outlaw literacy soon and get to breeding out of all sense of control or reason.
Flamebait summary much? (Score:3)
Khan is a Muslim.
Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.
Re:Flamebait summary much? (Score:2)
Khan is a Muslim.
Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.
Many mainstream Muslim do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims [wikipedia.org]
Re:Flamebait summary much? (Score:3)
Khan is a Muslim.
Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.
Many mainstream Muslim do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims [wikipedia.org]
So?
Many "mainstream Christians" don't consider Mormons to be Christians, yet they are.
Many Hasidic Jews don't consider "mainstream Jews" to be real Jews, yet they are.
Who determines your faith - you, or other people?
There is only one reasonable solution. (Score:2)
The U.S. should invade Pakistan and never leave until they get their textbooks right.
Re:There is only one reasonable solution. (Score:2)
The U.S. should invade Pakistan and never leave until they get their textbooks right.
Maybe we should start with Texas first.
It's not just a problem with sectarianism (Score:5, Informative)
I would argue that on top of the sectarian issues in this particular case, there is a major lack scientific achievement in that region of the world. Dr. Abdus Salam is one of only two Nobel laureates from a Muslim country. Islamic Universities have a shockingly low output (only 300 out of the 1800 universities in the region have even _one_ faculty member who has ever published anything. Compare that to Western Universities where typically every faculty member will have publications.)
Part of the problem might be the rote learning paradigm that dominates in the middle east. Free inquiry and critical thinking are probably discouraged in a region dominated by so many authoritarian regimes. However, I would argue that one of the main reasons science has failed to flourish in Arab-Islamic countries is the legacy of one man: Abu Hamid al-Ghazali [skeptoid.com].
Al-Ghazali helped codify and unify several competing schools of Islamic thought, binding them around the central premise of rejecting outside influences to concentrate on spiritualism and devotion to God. While European philosophy focused on understanding the material world, al-Ghazali focused instead on the supernatural. After the Crusades destroyed the Islamic world's scientific Golden Age, al-Ghazadi's anti-scientific philosophy held sway and kept the region from experiencing the kind of Renaissance that moved Europe out of the dark ages.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:A national hero here (Score:3)
Re:A national hero here (Score:2)
Why current? He's been dead for almost 20 years after all.
Anyway: Feynman, Dyson, Penrose, Hawking, Preskill.
Or do they all need to be American, in which case remove those English pretenders and add Thorne and Guth
If dead doesn't count, then I don't care Feynman stays because he can't not be on any such list.
If dead does count then make some room for Fermi, Oppenheimer, and Einstein.
Re:ebooks and digital media without physical mediu (Score:2)
too easy for them to accuse original, true e-copies as being false works
There's always digital notary services to timestamp something, crypto signed documents to prove who signed it, etc.
VERY unpopular (intentionally?) but hardly technologically impossible or an inherent issue with the media. If everyone used pencils with erasers, and refused to use indelible ink, that doesn't mean paper technology is at fault.