Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Atheist Blogger Sentenced To 3 Years in Prison For Insulting Islam

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the just-ignore-words-you-don't-like dept.

Censorship 412

An anonymous reader writes "Egyptian blogger Alber Saber, maintainer of the Egyptian Atheists Facebook page, has been sentenced to three years in prison under Egypt's blasphemy law for posting the trailer for the anti-Muslim film Innocence of Muslims. This film was widely blamed for al-Qaeda's coordinated attacks on U.S. embassies on September 11 of this year, which were meant to pressure the U.S. for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is imprisoned in the U.S. for his role in the World Trade Center attack of 1993. Amnesty International calls the sentence an 'outrageous' assault on freedom of expression."

cancel ×

412 comments

Really? (2)

rjr162 (69736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266743)

I watched it on YouTube... it was the biggest pos movie I've ever seen. Hell we made better home movies than that pos movie could ever be

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266859)

I've not seen it, but I have to approve any way. Fundamentalist Christians fighting oversensitive Muslims? Whichever one wins, enjoy the show.

"The movie is accusing us of following a religion of violence. Such accusations are intolerable - start murdering unrelated people until the insults stop!"

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266903)

There is nothing like Militant Atheists to kill MILLIONS in the former Soviet Union. Yeah, kind of funny how even "no religion" is bigoted.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267015)

Troll comment of the week.

Denuding the situation to strictly atheistic motivation is historical falsehood.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267083)

Look at china, no religion killed 80 milion...

doesn't matter people kill people... In name of God people kill people, without God, the make someone else God and kill people...

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267061)

Jesus wept! To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle actual religion. Accepting that atheism can have at least two meanings (active disbelief or simple lack of belief), the notion that atheism is a religion has been debunked so many times. Question, is lack of belief in Hathor a religion? No, it's not. By knowing someone lacks belief (or actively disbelieves) in Hathor, what can you tell me about this person? Not much, eh? Funny then how this lack of belief in all gods, not just every god except one, can build in to something that leads to gulags, amazing photo manipulation, a great national anthem, and an unprecedented arms race.

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267249)

(active disbelief or simple lack of belief)

only someone so tied up in their own belief that that can't think any other way would make such a stupid statement.

", can build in to something that leads to gulags, amazing photo manipulation, a great national anthem, and an unprecedented arms race."
ah, I see. you are stupid.

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267289)

(active disbelief or simple lack of belief)

only someone so tied up in their own belief that that can't think any other way would make such a stupid statement.

", can build in to something that leads to gulags, amazing photo manipulation, a great national anthem, and an unprecedented arms race."
ah, I see. you are stupid.

I think you're stupid. I'll explain my reasoning if you go first in explaining yours.

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267365)

Jesus wept! To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle actual religion.

You must be one of those DBAs that can't accept NULLs

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267417)

To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle actual atheism. What do we have to do until you get it. The thing you hold dear and fear being belittled has no value to us, moreover going through life without this pillor of strength you rely on is what we value.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267425)

To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle actual religion.

To consider atheism a religion is to completely belittle atheism.

FTFY

Re:Really? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267469)

Atheism in the form of Marxist Humanism behaves as a religion in the anthropological sense. It has defined saviors, prophets, an origin myth, an utopia, a book of creeds that cannot be challenged in any way, a pantheon, newly converters feeling the need to preach the message to all people around, leaders (in the marxist sense) and a bunch of rites that don't make sense except in the context of religion. Oh, and they also show hate for all other forms of religions, and try by all means to stop them from having any influence in society.

Note also, that their societies have historically been the worse societies ever conceived by mankind, because Marxism only value others for their ability to work, so it quickly degenerates in a slavist society that kills the elders, the thinkers, the dissenters/protesters, and the weak. Add to that that marxist humanism also believes in malthusianism, which is the belief that there are too many people in the world, and you get a perfect hell.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

canadian_right (410687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267063)

Stalin was not a stamp collector. Someone who is not a stamp collector is an aphilateist. This proves that being an aphilateist leads to killing millions, and that all aphiliateists are immoral beasts.

Re:Really? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267457)

Problem is, Fundie Muslims [holycrime.com] have more in common with Stalin's Russia [youtube.com] than either have to do with stamp collectors.

FYI: The USSR was officially and actively atheist.

Re:Really? (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267647)

FYI: The USSR was officially and actively atheist.

Yes, and yet Mr. Gorbachev managed to refrain from killing milions of people.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267585)

You mean 'philateList'. I've never heard of philatheists, but they would probably be the people who love religion (in general). But you're right, assigning traits to groups of people, be it based on religion, non-religion, race or anything really is stereotyping, or even worse, bigotry. If someone is a murderer, then it doesn't matter what he uses as an excuse for his actions. It could be religion, ideology, philosophy, lifestyle, upbringing, video games, controversial books, lullabies, bubble gum manufacturing process or anything else, doesn't matter - for every murderer in every group of people, there are dozens more, who are not murderers. Unless it's a social club for murderers, that is. Point is - it's the violent personality that makes people violent, not the group that they belong to.

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

7-Vodka (195504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267065)

Really? I have a challenge for you. Name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.

Christopher Hitchens, may he rest in peace, used to pose this to any and all religious people of stature that he met, offered money to anyone who could satisfy this challenge for years and never had to pay up.

Now of course the corollary question, name me an immoral act that was performed because of religion and everybody has answers within seconds.

Morality is innate in humans, put there by natural selection. Religion has no claim on morality.

Of course, evil acts do not require religion, however religion discourages critical thinking in a way that can easily justify immoral acts.

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267119)

name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.

apostasy [wikipedia.org] *wink*

Re:Really? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267137)

Really? I have a challenge for you. Name me one moral act performed by a religious person that could not have been performed by that person without their religion.

Praying the rosary in the full belief that doing so will assist a recently departed soul into Heaven.

Now where is Mr. Hitchens' estate? I have a check to collect. ;)

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267233)

Prove it. You can't even prove that heaven exists.

Re:Really? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267261)

I don't have to - the act was saying the requisite prayers, on that particular device, while carrying that belief.

QED. ;)

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267367)

Wait, what? So wasting time, while fiddling with beads, while being wrong is now some special act? Hell I waste time quite often, fiddling with some thing or other, and I am wrong a lot. I guess I am super moral...

Re:Really? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267255)

That's not a moral act bit It is spell casting.

Re:Really? (5, Interesting)

Pseudonym (62607) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267215)

With all due respect to Hitchens, his "challenge" completely missed the point. (It was, of course, neither the first time nor the last this happened to him.)

Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that a non-religious person can't perform moral acts as religious people do, merely that they don't. The latter claim is essentially not under dispute. Religious people give far more to charitable causes in time and (if you leave off Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, two outliers who pull the average up all by themselves) in money.

By the way, the reasons why this is the case are also fairly well-understood. It has nothing to do with identity, belief or adherence, and everything to do with regular attendance at a place of religious worship. People who are not religious typically don't have their philosophical worldview explicitly tied to charitable giving regularly every week.

For the record, I would take it as a challenge to the non-religious to do something about it.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267369)

Religious people give far more to charitable causes

Citation, please. And proselytizing expenditures and church heating bills don't count.

Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that a non-religious person can't perform moral acts as religious people do, merely that they don't.

I take offense at that. If non-religious people "don't perform moral acts", then neither do religious people, by the same definition.

Re:Really? (4, Interesting)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267557)

A very good post. I think humanism (or the atheism+ thing) should more closely associated with charitable works. The problem with atheism as a label is that it says very little about a person. In a way I find the label "Christian" to be almost as meaningless.

On the subject of charity, I prefer to take this angle:

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods (or active disbelief), and that implies nothing in terms of charity. Christianity, by any mainstream understanding, is very much about charity. Accepting that Christians, as a group, give proportionately more to charity than non-believers, then why don't they give more? Why do many Christians in the western world live in a luxury that Jesus and his apostles could not have imagined. Why does my Christian friend (and he is one of the nicest guys I know) have two houses, two cars and a pretty comfortable standard of living? Like I said, he's a great guy, yet why does he spend so much on these luxuries when there are so many people in this world suffering? Why is it that the Catholic Church has so much cash, while elderly followers continue to tip money in to the tray? I'm reminded of a saying that goes something like "a priest with more than two pairs of shoes is a fraud". That money those worshippers put in the tray didn't just go to the steeple fund. I've heard from older generations of bishops here having pretty fine digs and a ready supply of fine wines. Some bought, and some donated to men who were more like local barons than true ministers of Christ.

Answer those questions and we'll also know why so many Christians have sex outside of marriage, divorce and disregard so many other teachings of Jesus and his apostles. I'm thinking it's cognitive dissonance among other things. I know a lot of good Christians and atheists. My girlfriend is a Christian, and aside from the occasional quibble, we're pretty much in agreement as to how to lead a decent life. The main difference is in terms of judgement: My actions are judged by myself and other people. Her actions are judged by God. Either way, we're good people who, without a doubt should do more, but certainly aren't doing nothing in terms of charity and trying to bring some happiness in to this world.

Re:Really? (3, Informative)

grcumb (781340) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267629)

Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that a non-religious person can't perform moral acts as religious people do, merely that they don't.

Statements like this make me despair for humanity. It's completely, utterly wrong, on the face of it. It doesn't even stand up to momentary scrutiny, and yet here you are, dismissing a very significant part of the world's population as morally bankrupt. Worse yet, you're claiming they do so by choice.

Look: If you want to have a good discussion on the nature of faith, on the things that drive us to perform selfless acts in the true tradition of Jesus[*], then read Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory [wikipedia.org] , and come back when you begin to understand that human motivation and morality are not nearly so clear-cut as some might think.

Living a life of decency and service to others is fucking hard, amigo, and it starts by not shitting on others just because they don't subscribe to your particular newsletter.

HTH, HAND

-------
[*] Yeah, atheists admire Jesus' teaching too. Amazing, isn't it? We just don't think the ascension to Heaven part is required in order for us to emulate his ways. How's your mind? Not too blown, I hope.

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267299)

Religion discourages critical thinking no more than man's own reasoning which can also justify immoral acts. Furthermore, any attempt to justify morality ends up, in essence, being the same thing as a religious belief as it regards to one's own actions.

For example, a belief in a superior race can come across both through religion (we are divinely appointed to rule X people) or without religion (we are ethnically more evolved, thus making us best suited to rule X people).

People are people and have the same nature regardless if they believe there is a God, believe in many gods or believe there is no God at all. Its no surprise that a lot of violence occurred in the name of religion (or the belief in a lack of religion) because its what people most strongly believe in and it allows for the hiding of the root causes of the conflict. Its much more heroic to die fighting for what you believe in than it is for someone to die, say, acquiring a lot of land. Therefore, conflicts which were based on human desires such as the crusades were depicted as a religious struggle because it gains much more support and makes the deaths seem nobler. Consider the Trojan War, in order to make it sound noble it was fought over love, rather than the real reasons (the Greeks really wanted the wealth of Troy).

Re:Really? (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267479)

Religion discourages critical thinking no more than man's own reasoning

So you're saying that all those Biblical creationists, if they hadn't been spoon-fed Bible verses in their childhood, would have arrived at the notions of Earth being 6000 years old and a global flood having been a real event, purely by "man's own reasoning"? That somehow doesn't compute to me.

"we are ethnically more evolved"

So, in other words, just because humans can make logical mistakes, that makes somehow religion acceptable because it makes mistakes of the same kind and we're used to those? And BTW, this is a fallacy in the first place anyway, as there is, biologically, no such thing as "more evolved". The difference is that reasoning errors can be eventually fixed, while supernatural dogmas of the "we have been chosen by God to rule the world" are very difficult to weed out.

Re:Really? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267071)

It's quite a fiction that the Soviet Union was atheistic. Significant percentages of Soviet citizens were either Russian Orthodox or Muslim, together they made up something like half of the population. Somehow I don't think that these people didn't participate in the massacres just because they were religious. In addition, I'd like to remind you of the fact that pre-communist Russia was a horrible place to live in even though all were Orthodox Christians. You know, nas mnogo - the traditional Russian approach to the value of human life.

Re:Really? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267555)

*ahem*:
Point the first [loc.gov]
Point the second [jstor.org]
Point the third (and mind the Cryllic - Chrome should translate it) [ukrweb.net]
Point the fourth [democratic...ground.com]
Point the fifth [ciuspress.com] ...and so on...

The USSR made it a point to suppress (and eventually try to eliminate) religion, as Marxism wouldn't have room for it.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267079)

Those people were killed because of their Ideological views and affiliations, not because of their religious belief or non-belief or their killer's religious belief or non-belief.

And those rabid nutcase ideological regimes are chipped from the same block as the rabid nutcase religious regimes.

They're all in the same basket as far as I'm concerned.

So, yes, REALLY.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267091)

You are incorrectly attributing what happened in the Soviet Union to atheism. You should attribute it to people who don't believe in invisible pink unicorns.

Re:Really? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267609)

Anoint it with prego and I'll believe in it.

Re:Really? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267221)

Wow, you are seriously fucked up and completely clueless about the former soviet union.

Can you even begin to understand why your statement makes exactly no sense?

Re:Really? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267275)

Those people were not killed in the name of atheism dipshit. It was all about political power and had very little to do with religion.

Re:Really? (0)

SpockLogic (1256972) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267325)

Beware the religion of the gun.

The policies of the NRA have killed many more Americans than all the islamic terrorist groups combined. No amount of washing will remove the blood of their fellow Americans from the hands of the NRA members.

Good post (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267427)

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of athiests suddenly cried out in anger and rushed to their parents' basements so they can hastily convert their hissy-fits into textual content on their computers.

You get double points, since you've also enraged all the revisionist leftists who refuse to believe that the USSR was the murdering, delusional train wreck that it truly was.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267201)

When Godzilla and Mothra fight it's Tokyo that pays the price.

Re:Really? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266953)

I don't think blasphemy laws really differentiate based on production values.

1st Post! (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266751)

We all knew Egypt's laws were f'ed up right?

Re:1st Post! (0)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266767)

also f' islam. Silly fools, learn to deal w shit.

Re:1st Post! (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266847)

"learn to deal w shit."

They have. Prison. Damn liberals. In my day we would have severed his mouse.

Re:1st Post! (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267171)

To paraphrase Trotsky:
You may not be interested in Fundamentalist Islam, but Fundamentalist Islam is certainly interested in you.

The sooner everyone realizes this...

I think you missd a word (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42266787)

Like "incorrectly" blamed, since we now know those attacks weren't over the YouTube video.

Re:I think you missd a word (2, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266811)

I think that its a bit simplistic to exclude it. Some events do actually have multiple causes. The real world is complex, and rarely aligns with a fox news soundbite.

Re:I think you missd a word (5, Informative)

baldass_newbie (136609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266865)

I think that its a bit simplistic to exclude it. Some events do actually have multiple causes. The real world is complex, and rarely aligns with a fox news soundbite.

And it never aligns with President Obama's talking points but that doesn't change the fact that the protests had nothing to do with the video. In fact, it wasn't even the pretext for the gathering.

Re:I think you missd a word (3, Informative)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266911)

" In fact, it wasn't even the pretext for the gathering, and the administration knew this all along"

FTFY

Re:I think you missd a word (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267291)

don't be stupid. People seem to think the white house has precog abilities and know exactly what happens, and the motivation behind event the moment they happen.

I would love for people like you to be involved in something like that. If you survive you might actually get a glimpse of the confusion and dynamic shifts that happen during, and immediately after, these events.
 

Re:I think you missd a word (2)

7-Vodka (195504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267121)

In this case though, what you think is worth 2 shits and an empty jello shot glass. There's been *plenty* of evidence that these attacks were planned before the video was released, based on much more compelling reasons and in some cases the people at the attacks had never heard of the video. So not to put causality aside, if event A was already set in motion before event B even happened... it's hard to blame A on B.

If I put my tinfoil hat on, there are even people who claim the CIA were distributing anti-video posters for people to take to these things.

Re:I think you missd a word (2)

penix1 (722987) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267395)

So not to put causality aside, if event A was already set in motion before event B even happened... it's hard to blame A on B.

And to finish that for you...

But B may contribute to A making it worse....

Re:I think you missd a word (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267265)

the event was planned prior to the video. It's stupid to think it added to that event.

Re:I think you missd a word (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266827)

What's curious is that the summary basically says as much in the same sentence: the attacks were intended to pressure the U.S. for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Re:I think you missd a word (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266891)

Is there any evidence for this? Al Quida may be extremeists, but they aren't entirely stupid - even they must have enough knowledge of US politics to realise that aim is entirely unrealistic. A minor leader they could maybe get, but an 9/11 attacker? Any politician who dared sign the release papers wouldn't only be out of a job, he'll be lucky to make it through the next year without an angry mob destroying his house.

Re:I think you missd a word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267155)

At a minimum it looks good for the angry masses. The IRA for a long time had a pretty unrealistic goal, that certainly wasn't going to be achieved by blowing up pubs. The rhetoric kept the money pouring in from teary eyed idiots who saw the boys as fighting the good fight. In reality the fuckers spent most of their time in small-time turf wars, encouraging a culture of people who wanted to be the local big man.

Think of a hormone-addled and under-sexed 19 year old guy bragging about the pussy he's going to nail at this weekend's party. We should not be surprised when, after the party, he returns home alone and uses his final moments of consciousness to angrily coax his cock in to spitting its load in to a sock.

This isn't about any serious expectation of freeing Islamic lands or defeating the west anytime soon. It's about the long-term, and for now bellowing loudly in public while hoping that mom washed the sock so it's ready for another load tonight.

Re:I think you missd a word (1, Troll)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267191)

Take your Fox news ignorance and blow it. It's certainly true that the armed attack on the Benghazi consulate was orchestrated by the Libyan militia, but there was *also* a demonstration over the video that preceded it (there are various accounts about people chanting in the street over it). And the attack in Cairo was in fact due to the video.

We know you're a Fox zombie because you repeat the talking point word for word "attacks weren't over the YouTube video". (the use of the YouTube reference that ignores the video itself is intended to trivialize it and make it seem inconsequential, when in fact much of what happened that day was a result of it, just not everything.)

Re:I think you missd a word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267393)

Protests and attacks aren't the same thing.

Well, is it Illegal? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266803)

has been sentenced to three years in prison under Egypt's blasphemy law for posting the trailer for the anti-Muslim film Innocence of Muslims.

There's an axiom that covers that:

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Not that I agree with being imprisoned for posting a video (much the opposite), just making an observation.

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (0)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266861)

There's an axiom that covers that:

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Not that I agree with being imprisoned for posting a video (much the opposite), just making an observation.

Why did you make that observation?

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267181)

He's one of those weirdos who think people read comment titles if you don't copy them over as the first sentence of your comment.

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (5, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266909)

That axiom is great advice for adapting to a new culture.

For advancing a culture, it's kind of ineffective.

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267633)

And whose culture is it anyway?

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (1)

BlueRaja (1397333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267033)

So your advice is, always be subservient?

It sounds to me like you're just rationalizing to convince yourself that this could never happen to you. Because bad things only happen to people who deserve it, right?

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267549)

Interesting. I rather thought he meant, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". But your way works too.

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267319)

That axiom would me no women voting, enslaved people, and non stop dark ages.

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267381)

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Not that I agree with being imprisoned for posting a video (much the opposite), just making an observation.

Well, you do have a point. Jesus did say to go unto the heathens if you want to convert heathens (paraphrasing of course); all others get the hell out of dodge if you don't want your head to go missing...

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (2)

magarity (164372) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267399)

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Heck with that, Next time I'm in Rome, I'm going to do as the Visigoths did.

Re:Well, is it Illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267621)

you miss the point of the axiom by trying to mock it. by the time you refer to, the visigoths were the power in the roman territories, so the rule was still very much applicable. the romans did not realize the rules have changed and they had become vulnerable.

lucky guy (1, Insightful)

fche (36607) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266829)

Considering that in sharia, blasphemy (and so many other acts) can be punished with death, he got off light.

Re:lucky guy (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267229)

Egypt isn't under sharia law. yet.

Re:lucky guy (1)

fche (36607) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267389)

Supposedly even their 1971 and 2011 ones were subservient to sharia ("the principal source of legislation").

Re:lucky guy (1)

fche (36607) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267437)

(ones == constitutions, sorry)

things like these (2)

etash (1907284) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266837)

aren't really news. News would be that an atheist blogger was not jailed in $random_ME_country. Having said that, stories like these should come up, it's the least we can do to help - even a tiny bit - things change down there.

Re:things like these (0)

7-Vodka (195504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267161)

Funny, you sound as if you think the non-muslim extremist western countries are somehow better.

Don't forget that Great Britain has laws and jails people for posting things of an offensive nature online.

I would not be surprised if this announcement had said Great Britain instead of Egypt.

Re:things like these (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267333)

Citation?

2 points (5, Interesting)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266839)

1 - the movie was incorrectly attributed to the pre planned attacks that resulted in the deaths of more than a few americans.

2 - If anybody actually thought that the eqyptian government was going to be all good now because of the uprising clearly has not been paying attention. Id love to visit but not until there is another revolution there.

Re:2 points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267023)

1 - the movie was incorrectly attributed to the pre planned attacks that resulted in the deaths of more than a few americans.

  2 - If anybody actually thought that the eqyptian government was going to be all good now because of the uprising clearly has not been paying attention. Id love to visit but not until there is another revolution there.

1 - No, the attribution isn't too far off. What likely happened is that the terrorist group(s) have been planning and practicing for this for a long time but had no opportunity to carry out their plans, biding their time for such an opportunity. Well, enter the idiots who just had to release their "magnum opus" (magnum doofus IMO) on September for maximum impact. Problem solved.

2 - Good point. Furthering the truism that religion and state should never be mixed. Islamic extremists basically shat on all the hope for change the Egyptians fought for. I say Egyptian should just lynch the asshole and keep lynching whatever asshole gets put in place until a real diamond comes on top.

Re:2 points (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267151)

1 - No, the attribution isn't too far off. What likely happened is that the terrorist group(s) have been planning and practicing for this for a long time but had no opportunity to carry out their plans, biding their time for such an opportunity. Well, enter the idiots who just had to release their "magnum opus" (magnum doofus IMO) on September for maximum impact. Problem solved.

Hopefully you got your gold star from Obama for repeating this. Since Mrs. Rice lied multiple times about this and it was shown to be a lie, I have yet to find a SINGLE administration official that currently has this position. Not a single one is saying this anymore. Please prove me wrong. Rice got caught lying, Obama skipped a meeting with the PM is Israel to go on Letterman and make this lie, Obama went to the UN to make this lie. Apparently you are the only idiot left that believes it.

By the way, there is video of the consulate where the attack happened. There was no gathering there, there was no protest. The first people to show up were shooting as they arrived. The administration didn't realize that video existed before they told their lies. I'm sure you didn't get to see that video because many news organizations failed to admit it exists or show it because it didn't do Obama any favors to do so.

So yes, you are the last idiot who thinks this. Congratulations on being the last person to deny the truth. Your mother must be proud.

Re:2 points (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267185)

2 - If anybody actually thought that the eqyptian government was going to be all good now because of the uprising clearly has not been paying attention. Id love to visit but not until there is another revolution there.

There's a few things about Egypt you should probably know. For one thing, the poverty rate there isn't much worse there than the United States (15% versus 20%) despite the radically different size of the economy and median income ($6k versus $40k). And before you jump down my throat on "proving that", I sourced that information from the CIA World Factbook [cia.gov] . They have a significantly lower violent crime rate than here as well -- almost four times less (and yes, I can back that up too from a reliable source, The UN Office on Drugs and Crime [unodc.org] . And when it comes to jailing people, the United States ranks #1. Egypt? #165. (Oh yes, sourced [prisonstudies.org] that too).

So when you get all uppity about how they're jailing a blogger for three years for publishing something anti-muslim, I want you to remember the terror watch lists [11alive.com] . I want you to remember Guantanamo Bay [theatlantic.com] . I want you to think of the hundreds of political prisoners (Citation? Got you covered [harvard.edu] . I assume Harvard Law School is prestigious enough?) we ignore. You talk about media control and manipulation in other countries like Egypt like they're somehow worse than those of the west.

The truth is... they're better. Three years for pissing off the government here is a comparatively light sentence: We put people in jail for at least a year for just being in the wrong place [about.com] at the wrong time.

Don't ask for a revolution before considering visiting Egypt. Chances are good, your country needs one more.

Re:2 points (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267511)

so know illegal aliens getting arrested for blocking traffic is the same as jailing someone for posting something some peoples club considers offensive?

your violent crime examples of homicides, not violent crime.
Of course, rape and violence on women is rarely reported, and even less frequently documented. so you link is less facts and more half truth.

The crime rate was low in Germany During the Nazi regime. Is that really an argument that Nazi Germans is better then the US, or any country?

Most women and children get punished through other means, or are sent away to institutions operated by a separate ministry; so they don't get counted.
That said, I suspect that there rate of imprisonment is lower then the US. The USs prison increase is doe toy the privatization of prisons.
Also worth noting, the number of people imprisoned in Egypt as gone up quite dramatically in the last 12 year.

the truth is, they aren't better. All your metrics ignore what life is like for over half their population.

We aren't perfect, and we need improvement. However our country can, and has many times, changed without needing a revolution.

We do live in a country where you can have a different house of worship on each corner at an intersect and nothing violent happens.

Is it Islam or something else? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42266851)

Saber Ayad was arrested on September 13 after angry groups of men surrounded his house and called for his death, accusing him of heresy, atheism and promoting Innocence of Muslims – a short film regarded by many to be offensive, as it portrays the Prophet Mohammad and Islam in a negative light.

I just saw a documentry on ancient Alexandria last night with that historian hotty, Betteny Hughes [google.com] , and how it and Egypt was the center of learning, knowledge, multicultural and tolerant of others.

WTF happened to them?

Is Egypt's backwardness really because of Islam or has the religious peanut gallery just ruined it for everyone including their fellow Muslims - kinda like how the Evangelical Christian nuts are ruining Christianity for everyone else here in the States.

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (5, Insightful)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266957)

Christians were the ones who burned the Library of Alexandria (and because of them who knows how many ancient documents were lost forever). All religion is backwards and intolerant of other points of view simply because each religion claims to have a monopoly on truth. Therefore, other ideas are "competition" and must be eradicated.

Each religions claims to speak for God but it's always men saying "god doesn't like this" or "god wants you to do that". However, god never actually says or does anything. If god actually exists, then let it appear to everyone and speak for itself. This whole notion of "insulting" islam is actually about punishment for speaking out against the establishment.

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267047)

You must have some inside information that no one else has. No one knows for sure who burned it down, but none of the suspects were Christian, And considering it was burnt before 0 AD, I am not sure how you would think it was.

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267227)

He's referencing the Carl Sagan episode on the library of Alexandria.

Truth is, the library went down four different times... two of which had less to do with any religious motive than with foreign conquest.

The last time it went down was, well... during the initial Muslim conquest of Egypt.

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267403)

It was burned a few times, mostly from the fine Wikipedia article...

1. Caesar accidentally burned the library down during his visit to Alexandria in 48 BC
  - lost 40,000 scrolls.
  - Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it.
2. its contents were largely lost during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (270–275)
3. Hypatia (the last librarian?) killed by Christian mob, in retaliation to Jewish killings earlier, probably around 391 AD
3. In 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of Amr ibn al `Aas, [the library was] destroyed by Amr, by the order of the Caliph Omar.

So the score is... Romans, Romans, Christians, then Muslims.

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (1)

BumbaCLot (472046) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267537)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agora [wikipedia.org]

I think this is what he was thinking of. But they don't have a great track when it comes to blasphemy either. I like the comparison that Islam is the teenager of religions and it may be ok in another 4-600 years.

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (2, Interesting)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267053)

Its "Monotheism" that is evil specifically. It teaches people that they have the *one* truth, and that anyone else must be wrong. Polytheists are generally more accepting I find.

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267525)

India and Pakistan have had how many wars now?

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267285)

Christians were the ones who burned the Library of Alexandria

Wow, learn some history. This one (mis)point really detracts from the rest of your post which is quite reasonable.

It was burned by Caesar [wikipedia.org] :

Plutarch (AD 46–120) wrote that during his visit to Alexandria in 48 BC Julius Caesar accidentally burned the library down when he set fire to his own ships to frustrate Achillas' attempt to limit his ability to communicate by sea

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267637)

Actually it's not all that reasonable. For one, there are non-theistic religions that do not claim to speak for God.

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267507)

A good chinese man will be a good Daoist, a good buddhist and a good confusianist. You seem to have been observing judeo christian religion and then tarring all religions with the same brush.

Re:Is it Islam or something else? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266975)

Hypatia was murdered by Christians in Alexandria.

Changing definition of tolerant (1)

erice (13380) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267321)

I just saw a documentry on ancient Alexandria last night with that historian hotty, Betteny Hughes [google.com] , and how it and Egypt was the center of learning, knowledge, multicultural and tolerant of others.

WTF happened to them?

By the standards of the Ancient and Medieval world, current day Egypt is multicultural and tolerant of others. For most of human history, "tolerant" meant that the state would not burn down the houses or places of worship of those who did not not adhere to the state religion. It also meant that non-believers were generally not killed and seldom imprisoned simply for being non-believers.

It did not mean that non-believers were exempt from religious law. It did not mean that non-believers received the same services or were not economically penalized. The Ottoman Empire at it's zenith is often held up as a great, multicultural and tolerant society. Except that non-muslims were taxed at a significantly higher rate for the specific reason of encouraging conversion. Christian churches were directly taxed, often quite heavily.

"Arab Spring" (4, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42266921)

So much for that bullshit...

Re:"Arab Spring" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267051)

More like a physical spring than a season. Back to energy potential 0.

Re:"Arab Spring" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42267129)

Yes, because other historical revolutions that led to stable and genuine democratic freedom were all wrapped up in a few months and completely without setbacks or any undesirable fanaticism.

We don't know how this is going to turn out. Bad sign? Yes. Necessarily going to stay this way or get worse? Can't tell yet. What I do know is that pining for the old days of the previous dictatorship isn't a solution either. Give it some time. Freedom is a powerful force, but the transition to it is often messy even if it does work out in the end.

Re:"Arab Spring" (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267267)

This was no 'revolution'. It's merely a changing of the guard, business as usual.

On the other hand. . . (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267123)

The prescribed sentence for this is death, so I'm sure the authorities think they're being totally reasonable and lenient with this "criminal."

Brace Yourselves (1)

earls (1367951) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267245)

Atheist riots are coming!

Re:Brace Yourselves (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#42267459)

Are we going to drink microbrews and talk about outer space?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...