Peace Be Upon You?
Talking about a tempest in a teacup, there has been one brewing over a little incident that happened at YouTube. It seems the powers-that-be at the popular site felt it necessary to suspend the account of one Nick Gisburne. The question is why.
Gisburne posted two videos there showing quotes taken from the quran and the bible. Each video was simply nine minutes worth of verses that shone a spotlight on the less than gentle side of both christianity and islam. The quotes from the quran began with the greeting "peace be upon you" which you were given a moment to view before you saw a question mark added to the end of it.
YouTube yanked the video of quotes from the quran. It left the one from the bible. Gisburne put the offed video back up. YouTube yanked it again and then suspended his account.
The believers in free speech have been busy little bees, however, and the video YouTube tried to suppress has been copied and made available at many sites. It's simply a total bore. Google Gisburne's name and you'll find a copy, but you might also find the thing is a total bore. It's just one quote after another that tell the faithful how vengeful a deity allah is. One of them tells the reader that if the almighty is out of sorts on the judgement day, he might just throw everyone into the fires of hell, just 'cause he can. There's a loving god, for you. There are also many exhortations to hate the "disbeliever" and kill them whenever opportunity presents itself.
What Gisburne didn't include in his video is any of the verses that exhort the reader to acts of benevolence. I am sure there are just as many in the quran as there are in the bible, just as there are as many verses advising the believing reader of the bible to lash out in the fervour of annihilating non-believers.
The point here is that the video based on the quran is the one that drew the punitive measure from YouTube. Who worries about offending christians, right? We just all have to tiptoe around muslims. YouTube didn't excoriate Gisburne for any possible lack of accuracy in his quoting from either book. They didn't take him to task for targeting religious folk in general as perpetrators of violence. They simply yanked the one about the quran and left the one about the bible.
Is YouTube beginning to fancy themselves as some kind of a big brother guardian of morals? Are they developing delusions of censorship grandeur? Or are they caving to the growing western fear of the muslim wolf at the door? More and more, westerners are being forced to bend over backwards to "accommodate" the sensitivities of those who worship allah at the expense of the ideals of freedom we have espoused as a society for many long years, all in an effort to stave off terrorist reprisals for perceived slights. When you tread on the toes of a fundamentalist christian, s/he will likely sermonize at you, thundering threats of hellfire and brimstone. You can listen if you're so inclined or simply walk away, unfazed and unhurt. When you are perceived as stepping on the toes of an extremist muslim, however, they'll whack off the whole goddamned foot and then chide you for calling them violent.
Any holy book that exhorts its followers to violence needs to be questioned, big time. Exposing wrong to the light of day is not anti-anything. It is simply a chance to right it; to clean up the dirt before it muddies you too.
Gisburne posted two videos there showing quotes taken from the quran and the bible. Each video was simply nine minutes worth of verses that shone a spotlight on the less than gentle side of both christianity and islam. The quotes from the quran began with the greeting "peace be upon you" which you were given a moment to view before you saw a question mark added to the end of it.
YouTube yanked the video of quotes from the quran. It left the one from the bible. Gisburne put the offed video back up. YouTube yanked it again and then suspended his account.
The believers in free speech have been busy little bees, however, and the video YouTube tried to suppress has been copied and made available at many sites. It's simply a total bore. Google Gisburne's name and you'll find a copy, but you might also find the thing is a total bore. It's just one quote after another that tell the faithful how vengeful a deity allah is. One of them tells the reader that if the almighty is out of sorts on the judgement day, he might just throw everyone into the fires of hell, just 'cause he can. There's a loving god, for you. There are also many exhortations to hate the "disbeliever" and kill them whenever opportunity presents itself.
What Gisburne didn't include in his video is any of the verses that exhort the reader to acts of benevolence. I am sure there are just as many in the quran as there are in the bible, just as there are as many verses advising the believing reader of the bible to lash out in the fervour of annihilating non-believers.
The point here is that the video based on the quran is the one that drew the punitive measure from YouTube. Who worries about offending christians, right? We just all have to tiptoe around muslims. YouTube didn't excoriate Gisburne for any possible lack of accuracy in his quoting from either book. They didn't take him to task for targeting religious folk in general as perpetrators of violence. They simply yanked the one about the quran and left the one about the bible.
Is YouTube beginning to fancy themselves as some kind of a big brother guardian of morals? Are they developing delusions of censorship grandeur? Or are they caving to the growing western fear of the muslim wolf at the door? More and more, westerners are being forced to bend over backwards to "accommodate" the sensitivities of those who worship allah at the expense of the ideals of freedom we have espoused as a society for many long years, all in an effort to stave off terrorist reprisals for perceived slights. When you tread on the toes of a fundamentalist christian, s/he will likely sermonize at you, thundering threats of hellfire and brimstone. You can listen if you're so inclined or simply walk away, unfazed and unhurt. When you are perceived as stepping on the toes of an extremist muslim, however, they'll whack off the whole goddamned foot and then chide you for calling them violent.
Any holy book that exhorts its followers to violence needs to be questioned, big time. Exposing wrong to the light of day is not anti-anything. It is simply a chance to right it; to clean up the dirt before it muddies you too.
2 Comments:
Oh, you know they're just afraid of the consequences of pissing off Muslims. Muslims are, after all to be afraid of. I'm sure there are many Muslims who will protest and be angry at this stereotype -- but you know what? Like I've said many times, the radicals have taken control, and if the moderates want it back, they need to be a little fanatic about their moderation. But I am suspect of the desires of moderates to champion their moderation. I remember the Danish cartoon brouhaha. A lot of the moderates hadn't even seen the cartoons -- were woefully ignorant of the portrayal of the Big M in their own cultures -- but were quite to draw conclusions and adopt the posture of radicalism.
LOL Andy, how can a moderate be fanatic? Isn't that an oxymoron? I guess I am fanatic about my moderation though. I have been getting a lot more warnings etc. I just laugh them off. Idiots.
In regards to youtube: they were and are wrong. nuff said.
Post a Comment
<< Home