There is a post on the politics forum which links to an idiot burning pages of a Koran. I reported it an hour ago and it's still up. What does Hub Pages consider objectionable? Gang raping a nun?
This is not a freedom of speech issue. Politics and religion are intertwined. Thomas Paine was none too fond of 'Papists'. Drawing the line of separation between Church & State is not easy. We will have a lively discussion whenever any group tries to impose their brand of morality on the body politic. I welcome the opportunity to show islamiphobes for the fools they are.
I am not a 'Christian' by most Christian standards. (I wonder if Jesus will see it differently?) You won't see me burn a bible not because of any special respect for the book, but because I respect a lot of Christians who have found a respectable spiritual & social code in the words of Jesus. Likewise I would never desecrate the the Book of Mormon or any Hindu book.
I expect reprehensible antics from the wingnuts. What surprised me is how Hubpages has allowed it. Desecrating a Holy Book of ANY religion is inexcusable. It is legal, but Hub Pages does not have to be bound by that standard. They would not allow me to link to pornography online even if the Supreme Court had decided not to censor it. They don't have to allow links to disgusting acts of violence against a book, place or icon of a minority religion.
Time for a bunch of folks to go to the post by AC that mentions Anne Barnhardt and hit the report button. And it's time for HP to clean up their act or quit banning anyone for anything.
... why is burning a koran so bad?
Why can South Park call Jesus a pedophile, but they can't even show an image that might possibly be considered Muhammad?
Dude. Give it up. Only liberals could convince themselves that showing "Jesus taking a crap on the president, a pregnant woman, and the American flag" is less offensive than "showing something that MIGHT be mohammed".
wake up. You've been brainwashed by tolerance.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep … -tolerance
The scene of Jesus taking a crap on everything that is "American":
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep … rs-part-ii
(it starts at 20:26)
And the first episode of "we can't show mohammed":
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep … ars-part-i
It's utter nonsense.
My rights do NOT end where your feelings begin.
10 cheers for HubPages NOT being a bunch of Cowards!!
hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah! hip hip, horrah!
I find it objectionable, but not so much that it's a koran being burned, but that it's an OP on the forum. I don't think that's right - it's just openly insulting a porportion of the community on here.
Presumably you've seen the video - it's just a pain in the arse thinking she's being clever and "brave". It's BS.
If Doug Hughes is for a lifetime ban then I am against it.
Seems the prudent course..
Did you flag the post in the thread, and perhaps flag the profile?
I think that's a lot more sensible than alerting the media about this particular incident.
And if you DID flag the post, etc., and HP hasn't responded, doesn't that give you enough information about where they stand on freedom of speech?
If you don't like the rules, you can always start your own website and proclaim yourself supreme ruler there, if it's not working for you here.
Trying to insert your beliefs into Hubpages policies?
Before you try, why don't you try to finding divinity/holy? I guess you're out of luck, considering it's been placed on the same scale as Love.
You know it when you see it in action. It's unfortunate, there isn't anything divine/holy about the human species. You believing there is, doesn't make it truth or even True or Fact.
Just because some idiot burned a book, you consider to be holy/divine, in reality. It's a book, just like any other reference book in existence. You reference it, whenever you feel the need to do so.
The exercise of freedom of speech, where someone burns a book, is their right. My only problem with this idiot did, was of no integrity. He knew the reaction and consequence of what he was about to do, before he ever set it a fire. That is just plain stupidity in motion.
The link was provided as a source of an article written about it? Was it not?
Please do try to keep your religion to yourself and out of other people's life.
You can't agree with that post and associated link though Cags - it's effectively an OP with a link to a youtube clip of a woman burning a koran.
You've got to have some standards on here; I'm not the easily offended type, but you wouldn't put something on here just to be objectionable. You wouldn't accept gratiutous swearing or disrespectful behaviour...
Why does "burning a book", and "showing a psychotic woman be an idiot" piss everyone off?
The complaints come from the same people who complain about how dumb Palin is, and make fun of her for opposing birth control while her teen daughter is pregnant.
It's CLEARLY nonsense.
I'm not o here telling my most offensive Japanese tsunami joke, or the best ones about 9/11 or necrophilia. There's a place for gratuitous, offensive things, and it really shouldn't be here...
I don't understand why you don't get this?
Why do you think "I don't get it". Of course I get it!! I'm not THAT dumb!! "Evan: if you piss people off, they get mad".. REALLY?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
Of course I "get" it. I just disagree with the statement. You guys don't want her to post the video because it might piss someone off.
I think that's dumb.
Go ahead and make your "japanese tsunami jokes". I have friends and family over there. Hell, I'd probably laugh (if they were good). Sure, you might piss someone off. But that doesn't mean that you can't say them. That would be BS.
You'd probably lose a lot of friends, and hurt your own reputation (I'd probably not bother reading your posts -- the same way i don't really take what AnnCee, LadyLove, and others seriously).
You'd just be harming yourself - the same way that AnnCee hurt her (his?) own reputation by posting the inflammatory video.
What's the end result of the post of that video?
1) I have less respect for AnnCee
2) I saw an idiot using bacon as a bookmark
AnnCee just hurt him/herself. That's pretty much it.
... I'm curious how everyone would react if, instead of AnnCee saying "She's a hero", s/he said "What a horrible thing! What insensitive people!".
I bet it would have been different.
I didn't say she was a hero. I'm still not sure what I think about this action or this person. She's brave. She went into this with her eyes wide open to the danger. That's like standing on a wall and taunting your enemies below. People have died for doing less.
Was her action foolhardy? Outrageous? Courageous?
Since she is completely aware of the consequences I would say courageous. She has the courage of her convictions.
Will people die because of what she did? I'm afraid so.
This was an extremely radical and provocative action. I've never seen anything like it.
I consider it newsworthy, shocking, and worth thinking about.
You think it's courageous to get strangers overseas killed for your actions taken at no personal risk? (Yeah, if she had flown to Afghanistan to pull her stunt in public, that would be guts.)
She's taking chances with the lives and futures of strangers because she's a hateful birch. (The tree )
I think you should be banned for trying to take away our right to free speech and expression! your actions could cause riots in the streets because we do not want our liberties taken away. why do we have to follow your way of thinking? Did he/she kill anyone? they did not even burn the book and now you want someone banned for posting something they thought was interesting? GO TO IRAN they live that way and you can go rat on every woman that is not covered up or wearing something inappropriate. Did you see sex in the city the movie? they went to the middle east and Samantha dropped a condom and was fooling around with a man and they were getting mad. was that irresponsible? You people will never give up trying to ruin this country! did you write to the middle eastern countries when they burned the church down and bibles and killed Christians because they are Christians? do we go in the streets and riot and kill? they are responsible for their own actions! if anyone doesn't like it don't watch!!!
Doesn't my right to free speech extend to stating my opinion?
I think AnnCee's link is vile and should get her a lifetime ban. Do you think only wingnuts expression is proteted under the 1st amendment?
no I think everyone has a right to expression...sorry. who ever does not like what is here can not look at it. I do not like our liberties being taken away it is that simple I do not care if the video showed a bible burning, that is their right, I do not need to watch it. and I will not go around and act a fool and kill people because of it either. do you not get it yet? these people use anything as an excuse to spew the hatred they have for non-Muslims. second I really do not think AnnCee did it out of maliciousness. he/she said woman had courage to do what she did and give her address and all. he/she did not burn the book and post it here, merely just shared what they thought was interesting. even if he/she did burn the book it still is their right and we can decide whether we want to communicate with them for such a stupid act. a lot of things are stupid or wrong to do but that we have freedom of speech and expression and you should be proud of that.. grow up and stop being a baby.
So follow your own advice. If you don't like what I'm saying, don't read it.
Oh, it's a different set of rules for wingnuts.
again I'm not trying to get you banned for life am I?? I do agree with your thinking so that makes me a wing nut? just for your info am a democrat. so that theory is out the window. you can be seen as a wing nut from the other side to others also for your views of trying to take away liberties. relax it is called freedom of speech.
You want to pick one position and stick with it? You saod in the previous post you think I should be banned. Now you are not.
I said before this is not a free speech issue. I fave no problem discussing the bigotry of conservatives. Burning the Koran does not have to be sanctipned by HP to allow vigorous debate.
are you twisting? I made an anology of what your were saying. why twist it, I'm certain your smart and can read between the lines. who are you to try and make HP ban someone because you think it is offensive? If Hub pages are based out of the US I hope they believe like the constitution and dismiss this ridiculous charge. If they are from Europe and have their socialistic views you will probably get your way because they are weak on views like this. I do not see the Hub taken down so I will assume they agree that it should stay. good for them!
The Origins of Political Correctness
Bill Lind, February 5, 2000
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University
Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?
We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.
And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.
But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.
Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.
So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.
Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”
Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”
The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.
Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
Now we have racism because someone does not agree with your way of thinking? so you can say anti-Semite things without even knowing if they are? nice...and you are any better?
I'm not a racist for pointing out the racists, which Zionists certainly are. And stop throwing around the anti-semite word because I disagree with a genocidal Isreali phycho babble spreading her word around these forums.
you do not even know if he/she is a Jew? so you are racist!
I don't remember using the word Jew, but I do remember you throwing around the blanket term "anti-semite". Besides, Judaism is a religion, not a race. You're wrong about so many things.
what is a Zionist? answer question honestly and properly. are you dancing around your statements? " DonDWest wrote:
I'm not a racist for pointing out the racists, which Zionists certainly are. And stop throwing around the anti-semite word because I disagree with a genocidal Isreali phycho babble spreading her word around these forums."
how can you clearly state AnnCEE is a Zionist? so all Zionist are racist? genocidal Israel? ..NO YOUR NOT A JEW HATER!
Zionism is a political ideology where a group of people believe they're God's Chosen People and the rest of us are inferiors. They believe that God is a real estate agent and accordingly blessed them the land they call Israel. They believe it's necessary to cleanse the "holy land" of unbeleivers. There are Christian Zionists as well who enable such people to follow through with this political ideology. There are even Muslim Zionists such as the royal family in Saudi Arabia. Overall, Zionism can be difficult to define because the Zionists themselves in their views are so filled with contradictions, propaganda, and misleads.
A common tactic used by Zionists and their sympathizers is to blindly shout anti-semite. Often the blind shouting is misplaced and makes little sense. For the majority of Zionists are not semites.
What your preaching there is the Muslim Religion! do I need to get you a Koran? are you kidding me. Kill all the infidels, If the non-believers do not convert kill them or charge them tax? Wow. You must be Muslim to say this, Glad you exposed yourself. as for Israel if you do not know history it was their land first then they lost it, then Britain won it and SOLD it to Israel, they have kept the receipt. check your History.
As a matter of fact, Ron Montgomery's thread was closed during the tsunami crisis!
It was considered offensive to some, and it was closed.
Seems to me, this is just as offensive, yet NOW it's called "freedom of speech"...what about Ron's freedom?
What are the guidelines here? Ok to offend some, but not others?
And, the adds were removed from my pro-abortion hub. Nuff said. We know where the bias is.
It's a reference book, no different than any other book in existence. If the person wants to burn a science book are you going to condemn them? Probably not, because it's their right to freedom of expression.
If it's objectionable, then those who need to address their own inner issues and not step on the rights of others. Yes, civility should be a standard. Things should be seen for what they truly are.
I'm not condoning what was done. I don't find it acceptable. What I do have to do is accept that it is their right and it's not my place to interfere. As I said already, the person who did the original burning, knew it would anger others and could cost lives. But, the lives that were taken were not nor should the blame be placed on the person who burned the book. It should lay with the morons who killed other people. As a result.
There is a difference, which I pointed out above.
Excuse me if I left you with the impression that I'm Muslim. I am not. I know some - my daughter's best friend is from a Muslim family. They're fine people. No horns or tails.
My post indicated (I thought) that an attack on the symbols of somebody's religion - ANY RELIGION - should be out of bounds on Hubpages.
If it was up to me, AnnCee would get a lifetime ban.
As you know, there's at least a dozen westerners in the Mideast who are dead because of this kind of legal but hateful crap posted on the Internet to incite rage. I do not think the government can or should intervene in the US - but the civil society - the people of the United States don't have to endorse or allow it. Hub Pages does not have to allow it.
Your religion is irrelevant to me, as much as it is relevant to you. I didn't get any impression of your religion. Because, it actually doesn't matter.
Someone's "religion" can be attacked and/or considered attacked, if one simply disagrees. So what's your point? I've seen many believers on here, scream personal attack, simply because they disagreed with a poster's comment.
See, you are determining the bounds of Hubpages? How nice of you. Squashing freedom of speech?
There is no need to incite rage, it's already raging and has been for thousands of years. And, as I said before in my previous post- it's only a reference book. Nothing divine or holy about it.
You're correct, it shouldn't.
Civil society? Another person who believes something that doesn't actually exist. Society IS NOT Civilized. And, to think it is anywhere near it...maybe you should look at yourself and figure out why?
Actually, they do, if they understand rights and the world around them.
You're correct, they don't have to, but since it wasn't removed, then it would appear that your view isn't shared. However, if you make enough noise, with this thread, you might actually get what you want. Oppression of other people's rights.
I am waiting for a comment from Hub Pages.
Care to educate us on policy??
If you are asking HP to censor our conversations based on religion, I wish you the worst of luck.
It is bad enough that HP has to censor what is published as a result of business necessity.
I have seen discussion here on rape, child pornography and slavery. In comparison to these issues the discussion of others' "mistreatment" of religious icons is little more than a raindrop in a thunderstorm.
Let it go.
There is a distinction between a discussion of child pornography and a link to a video of a violent rape of a child.
The discussion, among adults, is appropriate. The video is not.
There is also a distinction between a video of child rape and a video of a small fire. Regardless of the fuel.
And no, I didn't watch the video. Not interested in watching a bunch of idiots proving just how stupid they are. Of course, I'm not much interested in the screaming of other idiots demanding that everyone in the world be as idiotic as they are either!
Let it go.
You can decide that the 'small fire' is trivial. Do find a way to explain that to the families of the dozen (or so) UN workers who died in Afghanistan as a result of a 'small fire' in Florida that was set and posted on the Internet for the purpose of inciting a riot. The people who do this are loathsome cowards because they are out of reach of the Islamic fundamentalists they hope to torment. Like a child shooting a dangerous animal in a cage with a BBQ gun.
Any responsible parent would take the gun away and punish the mean child.
Hub Pages needs to be the adult here and they are failing in their duty.
It is my belief that it is important to maintain our way of life - our freedom. This does not include bowing to and submitting to those that use death and torture as a way to coerce others in the world to agree with them.
Should we shut down the type of thing that "incited" the riot it won't help; the next demand may be to require that the world to stop all action during daily prayers. Then to participate in those prayers. Then to join the killing of those that object.
The extreme islamic faction over there will stop at nothing less. Best to either eradicate them or ignore them. As WE cannot eradicate them (only their peers can do that) our best bet is to ignore their demands and stop (or help to stop) their murderous actions whenever possible. As extreme force is the only language they understand that is the language we must use when dealing with them. Not the language of placation, which is what you are advocating. Should we go so far as to hang the book burners the extremists will be placated only until another of their demands is not met.
I DO actually agree that the book burning was a stupid thing to do - the only possible purpose served was to incite the riot in a far away place. Nevertheless I must support their right to do so - it is our way of life just as murder is theirs. I prefer our way.
Wilderness - read carefully. I clearly said that the US government should not interfere. No censorship. My suggestion was that Hub Pages should lifetime ban Ann Cee for linking to an idiot who burned a Koran. I made it clear that this is not just in deference to Islam or the Koran but also included the Bible, Book of Mormon or any scripture or icon of any religion.
Hub Pages can and does make their own rules. Right now, those rules make no sense.
It appears to me that HP rules are intended solely for the purpose of promoting business and income. Rules based on ethics or morals are not apparent (at least to me) and that's the way I like it.
If the day ever comes that I feel that HP is censoring our hubs or conversations based on their own concept of ethics, religion or anything but promoting business use I will leave.
While certain organizations (notably religious ones) censor their members according to ethical standards of that organization, I do not belong to any of them voluntarily. Nor would I want to; I am quite capable of deciding these matters myself and do not need anyone else to tell me how I should behave. And that includes anyone telling me how to treat a book, whether it be a religious fantasy book or not.
Personally I'm tired of the whole PC thing; never step on any toes, always defer to someone else's concept of right or wrong, and forever give way to any religious nut that comes around.
Remember the episode a while back when a bunch of Muslims decided to delay an entire airplane load of people so they could pray just before takeoff time? That kind of thing will only grow worse and worse if we let it, and demanding (through govt action or otherwise) that we defer to such actions will neither delay, diminish or stop such demands. Neither will demanding that we neither burn religious books nor show pictures of such.
Your suggestion that someone be banned from HP for providing a link to a book burning (even though said burning gave excuse for killing more infidels) is offensive.
Personally I find most of the things posted in the religion and politics forums extremely objectionable. However, I just avoid those areas. There will always be people you disagree with. I avoid sharing my political beliefs online because there is always a person who will counter with ridiculous behavior (and there are those people who just counter for the heck of it.)
I avoid it. You should too. Let stupid people rage about their religious beliefs because a news program makes up facts and says something is bad, but don't you let it get you down. Instead of getting angry, get proactive -- maybe create a hub about religious tolerance.
So why is anyone ever banned?
I mean, if I say XYZhubber has the brains of a Mediterranean Fruit Fly, I get banned for a week. But if I link to a psychotic, (nod to Evan who diagnosed) whose mimicking the actions of Jones which have triggered murders overseas, you suggest I write a hub.....
I tried to located the thread reagrding "the burning of the quaran" however I cannot locate it. I have to agree that if it is something deragatory then it should be removed. Everyone has a right to their beliefs. Not all Muslims are murderers or tyrants its ashame that we percieve all of them to be inhumane and heartless.
I wasn't able to find the "offensive" link by AnnCee. I assume it appeared on the thread involving the xxxhole minister in Florida who burned the Koran Are we beating a dead horse, so to speak????
no that was not the same it was a woman who blasted republican Lindsey graham and the burned pages she thought was evil and then gave her address for anyone who wanted a piece of her. crazy lady if you ask me.
What thread was the "offensive link " on? I'm curious as to what the controversy is about. Is it still up or has Hubpages deleted it? Lindsay Graham is one of the few Republican senators who occasionally makes sense, in my opinion.
Look under anncees to find it It is still up. I personally will not put that info up. as far as Lindsey Graham I personally think he is wrong. He was looking to take more liberties away. this woman blasted him big time which I thought would have been fine but she had to go crazy and take it to another level.
I agree. I didn't expect part two. A very radical action and she is encouraging others to follow suit for the sake of disarming this threat of violence with which they are holding the world hostage.
Terror is a complex enemy.
She decided to hit it in the heart.
I feel we're living in a world that's already too politically correct as is. . .
I don't feel anti-religious references should necessarily be banned, but it's in the wrong forum, we have a religious forum for such material.
I will also state that there are some things less offensive in nature that are widely policed and banned here: swearing and nudity comes to mind.
obvious you do not feel anti-religious bantering should be stopped you just called someone a filthy Zionist. and I would agree that it is your right to say anything you like as freedom of speech is important. should you be banned for that post? I do not think so.
Zionism is about as religious as Al-Queda, we've been through this already. . .
Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement
THE KEY WORD IS JEWISH!!
And Al-Queda claims to be a Muslim political movement. Politics and religion don't mix. Fact of the matter is such groups are political movements and not much else. I'm tired of speaking to a wall.
Maybe somebody else can explain to you that Zionism is neither a race nor a religion.
his rabbi disagrees, sounds religious based to me,...sorry
Rabbi Kook's answer was the following:
Zionism was not merely a political movement. It was actually a tool of God to promote His divine scheme and to initiate the return of the Jews to their homeland - the land He promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God wants the children of Israel to return to their home in order to establish a Jewish sovereign state in which Jews could live according to the laws of Torah and Halakha and commit the Mitzvot of Eretz Israel (these are religious commandments which can be performed only in the land of Israel). Moreover, to cultivate the land of Israel was a Mitzvah by itself and it should be carried out. Therefore, settling Israel is an obligation of the religious Jews and helping Zionism is actually following God's will.[
of course for your socialist views it is. how in one sentence he says Jewish is not a nationality or political. and is a religion and now it clearly shows it is a Jewish(religion)political movement, so it is religious!
Zionism are discussed in the following places at Britannica.
major reference (in fundamentalism (religious movement): Religious Zionism)
Despite the hostility of most Orthodox rabbis, Zionism aroused considerable enthusiasm among many Orthodox Jews who saw in it the promise of the long-awaited messianic redemption. Some Orthodox rabbis, therefore, sought to legitimate Orthodox participation in the Zionist movement. Rabbi Yitzḥaq Yaʿaqov Reines (1839–1915), founder of the Mizraḥi religious Zionist...
Mizraḥi (in Mizraḥi (Jewish religious movement))
...of Zionist nationalism; its traditional slogan was “The Land of Israel, for the people of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel.” It became the principal party of the Orthodox religious Zionists.
Vice President Biden is a Zionist, and he is not Jewish...it's a political movement.
according to Wikipedia and Britannica it is a Jewish political movement. I posted what they say? sorry I take their word for it over people on hub pages. and If Biden sees himself as a Zionist he must hate Obama who is against Israel.
Obama against Israel?
He played golf while little babies were being slaughtered in Operation Cast Lead.
Chuck Schumer and gv Patterson were whooping it up in NY.
People were dancing and singing and enjoying the blood-shed.
Please--anyone who is honest about Israel doesn't last long.
Look at Goldstone...even him, they got to.
But they can't get to the One who knows.
So shame on their eternal souls!
"then Britain won it and SOLD it to Israel, they have kept the receipt". Like to see the receipt.
The area of Israel was originally the British mandate of Palestine. IE, Britain owned the land and Palestinians lived on it. Following World War II, the land was given over to Jews so they could have their own homeland after the horrors of the Holocaust. However, the Palestinians living there became refugees in their own homeland. Many were forced to leave then and following the 1967 Six Day War and others since. Many are still hoping to return, nearly 60 years after being forced to leave. A couple of years ago, George Bush said Palestinian refugees could never expect to return to the area of Palestine, however, at the time of the creation of Israel in 1948, Americans, for once, had nothing to do with it.
I would suggest this website for further information:
In terms of Britain giving away a country that isn't theirs, this is an interesting question as that is what Britain has done throughout its historical colonial past. India was divided into 3 countries because of the British, Cyprus is in two parts, Northern Ireland was a mess for decades, many other islands are still owned by Britain eg Virgin Islands and Falklands.
The actions of the past have repercussions to this day: Northern Ireland's fragile peace, India's stand-off with Pakistan, Greece and Turkey over the legitimacies of Cyprus and, of course, the topic the questioner asked, the legacy and the future of the Middle East.
Sold, bought, given, whatever. Obvious ploy to fulfill prophecies and bring about armageddon. Working wonderfully.
I cannot find the thread or the link. Was this a google owned "youtube" video? If it was and youtube does not find it offensive then by the great google god laws it is not offensive.
I found it and it is posted to youtube thus whatup?
"Terror is a complex enemy."
Indeed. One could be your friend one day, then the next day, your enemy.
All one needs to consider is: Who Benefits?
Maybe I'm just simple-minded or something, but why would anyone expect HP to take something like that down? It's a book, for Pete's sake. If someone's entire religion lives and dies on a written page, that's a pretty poor damn excuse for a religion. If I want to go and burn a Koran, I'll do it. Or a bible. Or the flag. If that bothers you, go and live in another country that doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Seriously.
HP doesn't censor material. Google does. And HP follows Google's lead so that we can all continue to make money here. Once HP does start listening to the likes of the OP and censors material, I'll high-tail it out of here pretty darn quickly.
Burning a book, no matter what book it is, is not hate speech in and of itself. It is offensive, certainly. Disgusting, sure. But not hate speech. I watched the video in question, and the woman is reading passages from the Qur'an and analyzing it (though perhaps incorrectly). She does not say all Muslims are evil. And actually, if you take the Qur'an quotes out of context, as she's done, some of them sound like hate speech themselves.
In any case, no matter whether I agree or disagree with her, she does have a right to her opinion, and HubPages is not in a position to start making calls based on whether or not something is distasteful.
I'm just about to put a link up to a porn video named two girls one cup; just to offend.
Is this ok?
p.s. don't ban me - I'm trying to make a point.
Or write a hub about abortion--that will get your adds banned.
Pornography is a different matter entirely; we do not moderate porn because it is offensive. I'm not sure how this bears on the current conversation, and I'm not going to get drawn into a long discussion about our adult content policy here.
"and HubPages is not in a position to start making calls based on whether or not something is distasteful." Thank You.
Seems so many are inclined to censorship.
My idea of god lay not on a page. I feel that all those books do a disservice to the grand idea of god, With their divisive interpretation.And misrepresent its possibility. I love god ideas and respect others beliefs. And by no means do i burn books .The reaction of the faithful is what i find far more disturbing than the burning of any book.Islams reaction was the intent of action. It was meant to provoke barbaric like behavior. In order to support the idea of Islam being a violent faith. This guy that burnt the Koran is playing Islam like a fiddle. and to see so many Killing because of it . Makes even a tolerant person like me , question the civil nature all religions claim to live by.
All religions i feel are in need of correcting their path.
For gods sake i hope they heed the call for that.
I think if we all spent more time writing hubs with all this creative thinking going on we would make more money
All I can say is WOW
by Eric Graudins7 years ago
OK Guys, prepare yourselves.Some one called "jspmedia" has produced a video guide on how to drive massive traffic to your website using Hub Pages. There's a 3 month member with that name here: hub score 77, 0...
by Billie Kelpin13 months ago
I'm wondering if anyone knows the meaning of a word sounding like "dapus". My father used to use it in the context of being clumsy or perhaps left-handed? It could have been...
by Marie Flint3 years ago
I've been a little down about not having received a payout for nearly two years of participation here, but I'm looking at Triond, another writing site, and I must say how grateful I am for the amount of control I have...
by johnfl4 years ago
I have been on Hub Pages about a year and I have written about 27 Hubs and they have received close to 5000 views, which I felt was not bad and my status hovers between 82-88. Last week I had about 8 of my Hubs...
by TIMETRAVELER221 months ago
For those who do not already know this: when you sign on to write on this site, you are making a legal agreement with HP. It is up to you to read and understand their Terms of Service, part of which states...
by recraig28 years ago
I'm new here and things seem QUITE shifty I should say. My total page views have been 98 for a day or two and today it is 91. Now unless the Earth began a reverse rotation on its axis near the speed of light I doubt we...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.