Gadgets & Tech – It appears anything with the word Wiki in it is a target nowadays. I'm being facetious, by the way, but it is true that no only did Wikileaks get shut down by a U.S. court, but Wikipedia is in the center of a controversy around images of the prophet Muhammad.
There are things that we need to know from time to time. Sure, they are controversial, and including the controversy is fair, even necessary. But not even discussing them because they might ruffle someone's feathers is not an option. If we followed that logic, even the Bible would be censored.
If it bothers the bluenoses to read it, they should follow Harry Truman's sage advice, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." I suggest that rather than resorting to censorship, they simply quit looking up their pet peeve in Wikipedia and reading the results!
This is a tough call and a topic that is not about to disappear any time soon. Yesterday I ran into a Danish friend who lives in my small town and with whom I frequently have coffee, usually a sweet mellow guy.
But his face was like thunder and he launched into a furious tirade about the relations in Denmark with the Muslims, which recently came to a head again with the re-publication of the cartoons depicting Muhammad.
Denmark and Holland are two of the most small l liberal and tolerant countries in Europe but both have been severely affected by serious problems in relations with their Muslim minorities.
As have several other countries - Britain, France, Spain, Belgium, in particular.
The big question is how ARE relations with the Muslim world going to be normalised - and how long is it going to take?
For cultures that have been around for a long time a millenium might seem neither here nor there but in our speedy, busy Western world a decade may seem too long already..
To all muslims: I'd wear a T-shirt of Mohammed if I had one. You know, one with him in a circle with a slash across his face. Just not in a muslim community. I repect your right of worshipping to any religion you want but don't include me in your rules and regulations. I'm not a member and reserve the right to live by my rules and regulations, NOT YOURS. And if you don't like Mohammed's image in Wikipedia or on a T-shirt, don't look, or better yet, ignore it.
Go where? This stuff is old hat.
Here's the real story of the day...
http://tech.propeller.com/story/2008/02/18/wiki...
Not a member? Sign-up today!
yarrkz24
rylandl831968
maneetion
deadlyhaiku
Sundress
geniusbeauty
clownloach1
bugluver
Shannonyork
pfestus
jmserra
ILL-EAGLE
donkihot18
flyonthewallzz
Helixbuilder
ind06
picvegita
abd1977
binarymind
redbarin
askripko
eyeillusion
Wolfie2007
5urfsup
Radiofreeeuropa
dexlovex2
NemoShiZniT
matters5
fonzzy
vvv63vvv
cosmogenium
cherev
layhandy
GHOSTWHOWALKS
stwor
complicious
stephenhacking
ameliog
Debbie
PeakEndv
PracticalAdWords
Charlson
DiffeeOnline
contentmanager
anavrin
EverythingMouse
Francisca
hurr1
bruhaha
Dan and Jennifer
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
17)
Vote
Good for Wikipedia
Really? Because you could use the exact same arguments they're using to *not* censor child pornography.
Making or disseminating child pornography is a crime. Doing such with pictures of muhummad, drawn by faithful muslims, or anyone else is not.
"Making or disseminating child pornography is a crime." I agree that it should be, but it's not in every country.
"Doing such with pictures of muhummad, drawn by faithful muslims, or anyone else is not." Unfortunately it *is* a crime in many countries.
What it comes down to is that both are highly offensive acts to groups of people.
The problem is that whether something is "offensive" or not should not be a publication criteria. If something "offends" you, put on your Big Girl Panties and accept that not everyone shares your tastes, values or standards. "What it comes down to" is that child pornography injures and exploits living children; Muhammad's been dead for several hundred years and isn't being harmed in any way by artwork depicting his image, nor are his followers being harmed in any measurable way, merely annoyed.