(November 12, 2014 at 11:38 am)Minimalist Wrote: This must be a school for "moderates," then?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30005278

Check out Jordan if you want moderate sermons.

Jordan gives new marching orders to clerics: Preach moderate Islam — or else

Jordan's Minister of Islamic Affairs instructed the 5000+ imams of the nation to preach moderate Islam or face unemployment. No horseshit about unlimited free speech in that country.

Uh-huh.

Quote:Some clerics, though, bristle at being told what to preach. What some see as “moderate Islam,” others decry as “state Islam,” foisted on them by a pro-Western monarchy kowtowing to foreign powers.

I wonder how this is going to turn out?

Hmm...something else to consider.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/appea...m-youtube/

Quote:A U.S. appeals court will reconsider whether Google Inc must remove from its YouTube video sharing service an anti-Islamic film that sparked protests across the Muslim world.

Earlier this year a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with a woman who appeared in the film and ordered Google to take it down. An 11-judge panel will now rehear the YouTube case, the court said on Wednesday.

The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, objected to the film after learning it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”

Should be interesting.

(November 12, 2014 at 4:43 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hmm...something else to consider.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/appea...m-youtube/

Quote:A U.S. appeals court will reconsider whether Google Inc must remove from its YouTube video sharing service an anti-Islamic film that sparked protests across the Muslim world.

Earlier this year a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with a woman who appeared in the film and ordered Google to take it down. An 11-judge panel will now rehear the YouTube case, the court said on Wednesday.

The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, objected to the film after learning it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”

Should be interesting.

What exactly is the appeals court going to decide on? If the Circuit Court sided with the women because another video-maker was using her property (the clip in question) without her permission, then I'm fine with that, they should take it down. But if they sided with her beacuse it's offensive to muslims or something, that's a whole other matter.

(November 12, 2014 at 4:46 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: What exactly is the appeals court going to decide on? If the Circuit Court sided with the women because another video-maker was using her property (the clip in question) without her permission, then I'm fine with that, they should take it down. But if they sided with her beacuse it's offensive to muslims or something, that's a whole other matter.

The woman's lawyer argued that she had a right to be free of death threats. Probably too late for that. But as I've said before, this is what you get when you insist on unrestricted free speech to say things like BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM.

If she receives death threats, they should certainly be prosecuted. If the footage was tampered to make it appear she was saying that, she would appear to have grounds for a civil case, as well.

Quote:By a 2-1 vote, a 9th Circuit panel rejected Google’s assertion that the removal of the film “Innocence of Muslims” amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.

The decision raised questions on whether actors may, in certain circumstances, have an independent copyright on their individual performances. Several organizations, including Twitter, Netflix and the ACLU, filed court papers opposing that idea and urging the court to rehear the case.

I saw the 14 minute 'trailer' in question. It was awful. Absurd dialogue, lousy acting, piss-poor production - a worthy successor to Plan 9 From Outer Space. However, there was nothing in it which called for anyone to run out and kill anyone.

(November 12, 2014 at 7:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote: ote]

I saw the 14 minute 'trailer' in question. It was awful. Absurd dialogue, lousy acting, piss-poor production - a worthy successor to Plan 9 From Outer Space. However, there was nothing in it which called for anyone to run out and kill anyone.

I'm not going to bother watching it. The article suggested she referred to Mohammed as a paedophile (which he was) but truth never justifies insulting the Prophet.

(November 12, 2014 at 9:56 pm)xpastor Wrote: I'm not going to bother watching it. The article suggested she referred to Mohammed as a paedophile (which he was) but truth never justifies insulting the Prophet.

Am I misreading you? It seems to me that truth means it's not an insult, but rather, the unhappy truth.

Sorry if I'm not reading you right.

(November 12, 2014 at 10:09 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 12, 2014 at 9:56 pm)xpastor Wrote: I'm not going to bother watching it. The article suggested she referred to Mohammed as a paedophile (which he was) but truth never justifies insulting the Prophet.

Am I misreading you? It seems to me that truth means it's not an insult, but rather, the unhappy truth.

Sorry if I'm not reading you right.

Irony: Read it as meaning, "From a Muslim perspective truth never justifies insulting the Prophet." Their own sacred texts acknowledge that Mohammed married a 9-year old, but call it what it is, and see what happens. Of course there are exceptions for some ultra-liberal Muslims.