part time job ideas

date: 11 dec 2006



comment:



http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?article_id=51177

why my website was banned in india 

by rusty shackleford



two days after the mumbai  bombings last week that killed more than 180, the 

government of india issued a  directive banning 17 websites. these websites 

were singled out because,  according to the indian government, they might incite 

religious violence. the  nine american websites banned by india are all 

critical of the islamist  movement. not a single website of islamic extremists 

justifying and even  celebrating the mumbai bombings has been banned.  

why did india ban these websites? and what is the larger  meaning of this 

action? as proprietor of one of the banned websites, i am in a unique  position 

to answer those questions.  

the short answer to the first question is that we offended  islamists, and 

india is afraid of its own muslim citizens. the short answer to  the second 

question is that liberty may not be able to exist where there are  large 

populations of muslims. 

some time ago, a false  story began to be circulated in the mainstream press  

that a detainee's quran had been put in a toilet at guantanamo bay. some 

muslims  reacted by protesting, some rioted, and some were  killed as a result.  

this reaction was a clarifying moment for many of us.  islam, as understood 

by many muslims, is not a tolerant religion.  

the very definition of tolerance is to allow that which we  do not agree 

with. the moment muslims demand that their governments punish those  who say, 

write or depict things they find offensive, they  reveal their intolerance.  

so, the reaction of our websites was to make fun of this  overreaction. 

oddly, mocking the intolerant is now considered a form of  intolerance by many in 

the world.  

the specific reason for india's ban was that our reactions  to the 

quran-flushing story could cause religious violence. since it was only  websites deemed 

offensive to muslims that were banned, we know precisely who it  is that india 

fears.  

india's banning of our websites is completely rational. it  is based on the 

real fear of real people who do real  violence.  

i understand india's reason for banning our websites, but  certainly don't 

condone it.  

giving in to violent threats is not, in my book, a winning  strategy for 

defeating the very people who are threatening you. appeasement only  works if your 

goal is appeasement.  

goal is appeasement.  


further, banning religiously offensive speech kills  two freedoms at once. a 


nation cannot truly have freedom of religion if  that religion is immune from 


public criticism. a nation cannot truly have  freedom of speech if blasphemy 


becomes a criminal act.  


india's actions lead us to suspect that it will not just  be islamic states 


where religious oppression is the norm, but that any country  with a sizeable 


and vocal muslim minority might also be forced, for the sake of  domestic 


tranquility, to ban blasphemy. and we believe that our fears are  founded on more 


than this one case.  


while many muslim countries in the post-bush doctrine era  are moving toward 


more liberalization, many non-muslim countries are moving the  wrong way. some 


criminalize religiously offensive speech, and nearly all of  their leaders 


bend over backwards to never say anything that could possible be  construed as 


critical of islam.  


if india and other countries hope that condemning speech  critical of islam 


will appease their muslim populations, they have greatly  miscalculated. what 


offends islamists is not what we or others say, it is that  they are not in 


power to stop us from saying it.  


their ultimate goal is the creation of a state based on  islamic law. it is 


only then, when it is muslims who decide what needs banning,  that they will be 



only then, when it is muslims who decide what needs banning,  that they will be 

happy. the real gripe muslims have in non-muslim  countries is about power.  

india, of all countries, should understand this. both  pakistan and 

bangladesh were states founded because muslims refused to be part  of the secular 

indian state. india has fought wars over this. that war continues  today in kashmir 

and on the streets of mumbai.  

india is said to be a secular state with aspirations of  greatness. its 

recent actions show that it is neither completely secular nor  ready for its proper 

place on the world stage. this is all doubly sad because  india is also a 

natural ally against the cancer of islamic fundamentalism.  

it is india, not the u.s., which has bloody borders with  islam. mumbai 

should be a reminder to india who its real friends are and who are  its enemies.  

the move towards religious censorship by india is a  mistake. a nation does 

not cement its alliances by adopting the values of its  enemies and rejecting 

those of its allies.  

despite this slap in the face by india, i will continue to  wish her 

continued progress and prosperity. a wealthy india is an india better  able to stave 

off the attacks of the barbarians who are our common enemies at  her gates.  

india may have turned its back on us, but we should not be  so petty as to 

completely turn our backs on her. 

everlasting hatred: the roots of jihad  @

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?item_id=897



000000000

Service Unavailable

Service Unavailable


HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.