All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Manji, regardless of her percieved value as a liberal Muslim, is dishonest about the core of Islam and her comment from a few years back that Islam should return to its 'clever, fun-loving roots' does her in as an incredibly unserious opponent against jihad. Since she remains a Muslim, she obviously feels a need to believe Islam has value and can be reformed. Reformed from what? From 'clever, fun-loving roots?'
I'm actually turn about this. Part of my wants it to be published in order to tick off the Islamists, but on the other hand, it sounds like this book would glorify pedophilia. I don't want anything that glamorizes child rape, period. I don't want anything out there that does that. I don't want pedophilia to become mainstream. In practice all pedophilia is child rape, since children are not yet rational enough to consent. That's why its called statutory rape.
Interesting point, Damien, as the writer is either oblivious or devious as to her intentions. It's a rotten fact that Mo married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9, but from what I gather, this writer did suggest that it was a love story, which is way out of line. BUT it should be published, for many reasons, least of all for precisely the reason it was pulled. If this was scrapped quietly, it'd be one thing, but its now a story, and one that tells the enemy and his sympathizers that they have power over us, always, Always a bad thing, one that sets precedents for others to use as an excuse not to tell other important truths we need to know about Islam and its founder.
Well put, Pastorius. I have a moment in The Infidel where Killian, Pigman's creator, points to the Koran when a liberal store worker says that they don't carry hate-filled books, in response to Killian's query whether they carry a Robert Spencer-type book. As with the ton I've written, it may or may not make the final cut, but it's definitely a potent point to be made. I had a similar problem getting my hands on The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam a few years ago. I was in the store, asked a worker if they had it, he checked it back, brought me a copy, and I went back a few days later to pick one up and it wasn't in the new release section. I ended up having to ask two workers who both told me that they don't have the book, after I mentioned that I had my hands on one a few days before. Then they told me in a huff that the book may come in a few months. I was pissed and went to a manager, who led me to the back of the store where the book was. I'd have fired those two punks who likely were in on doing their part to keep Spencer's book out of people's hands.
For the most part I don't believe in censorship except for national security reasons. If I owned a publishing company I would gladly print anti-Jihad, anti-Islamic ideology books, but I wouldn't publish things that I thought promoted evil. That said, I don't think I would support passing a law banning a book like this. I don't think it would be constitutional, unless it contained pornographic photos of a little girl, playing "Aisha."
I know we have to stand up to these Muslim fanatics, but a good part of me will always be glad this thing didn't get published. Unless of course the rumors of it romanticizing Mohammad's "love" for Aisha are greatly exaggerated. Men who do what Mohammad did to Aisha belong in prison or worse.
I'm with you. I don't support a law banning books like this either.
And, a simple point which has not been brought up is this:
Anne Rice has a whole series of books like this. One, which I remember reading, was called Cry To Heaven, and it was about a castrati and his bizarre sex life, which began when he was a young boy, before his voice changed. When they realized how beautiful he was as a young boy, and how pure his voice was, they castrated him, so he would always be just so.
Another book, which is actually considered to be high literature, which deals with themes of homosexual pedophilia is Death in Venice by the giant of an author Thomas Mann.
Bizarre sexual content runs through much of Mann's work, as well as Melville, Harold Brodkey (who is one of my favorites, though most people are not aware of him), Paul Bowles, Henry Miller, Oscar Wilde, etc.
Camillle Paglia has a whole chapter, as I recall, dedicated to what she calls "The Beautiful Boy" in the great works of the Western Literary Canon.
Oh yes, and I am forgetting, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.
Lolita is considered, by many, to have been the best novel of the 20th century.
While I abhor pedophilia, I'm with you, we ought not censor literary works, because that is merely censoring the mind of man. We work out our thoughts in words. If we do not work them out, we will not grow as a people.
There are good truths about human nature, and there are dark, sick truths about human nature, and sometimes the two are inextricably bound together, or, as they say, two sides of a coin.
In my opinion, if we attempt to censor the literary mind so that it does not work through some of the darker regions of the human psyche, we will also be censoring the other side of the coin, without even realizing it.
All of this will become very apparent in just a few years from now, as we begin to meld the human brain with the computer through the use of advanced molecular chips (computer processing using molecules). At that point, the human brain will be wired to the internet, and thought will be enhanced and controlled by the internet itself, and vice versa, the internet will be enhanced and controlled by human thought.
Point is, it will be then that we will see exactly how the mind of man is effected when we censor certain thoughts. And, we will have some very deep decisions to be making.
Do we censor thoughts of murder? Do we censor thoughts of terrorism, or rebellion against the state? Do we censor thoughts of sado-masochism? Do we censor thoughts of erotic impulses towards parental figures?
Etc.
My answer is the Libertarian answer.
We do not censor human thought at all.
We only make laws designed to control human action which is directed at hurting others, or taking possession of anothers property through threat of physical coercion.
I actually find this to be the most interesting topic in the world. If it were not for the Jihad, I would be reading, writing, and thinking only about this topic.
If you go to my blog CUANAS, you will find, in my sidebar, links to organizations like the Lifeboat Foundation, The Kurzweil Group, and The Singularity Action Group.
The point of these organizations is that we are on the cusp of fundamental change in the definition of what it means to be human, as the technology to meld brain and computer is just around the corner. The technology is coming so quickly and inevitably that it behooves us to begin making the ethical considerations NOW, instead of when they hit us. It truly is incumbent upon us to begin thinking through these issues. If we don't we will find multiple ways to destroy the human. The nuclear bomb is but a crude metaphor for the kind of destruction we can wreak through the obliteration of the human spirit when absolute surveillance and censorship of the human brain becomes possible.
This blog is wack. You must smoke a sh!tload of reefer to come up with this garbage. Though the Lauryn Hill pic is hot hot hot.
Do any of you clowns know when the end of the world is coming? How long after Obama/Biden take office? Please, give me your worst case scenario. I'm all ears. Oh, and I read Left Behind, so I prefer to drive rather than fly now.
You call yoself a pubber and you don't know bout Left Behind? What are you, some kinda closeted log cabin sadist?
In the beginning of the mess of fiction that is Left Behind, people disappear from the plane to go to heaven or hell. Including pilots. I've been hearing about how the end of the world is coming from the w(r)ong wing wackkkos for some time. So now, if it's under 500 miles, I drive.
Oh, I get it. You're joking. I thought you probably were. However, since your humor lost the essential element of being funny, well, I wasn't sure.
I am well aware of what the Left Behind series is, and what it's about. I haven't read it because it's really not my bag baby. No, baby, I'm telling you, it's really not my bag.
Anyway, the world will probably not end when Obama takes office. Just as the world didn't end when Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Carter took office, even though people told us it would.
I'm not into this whole Dem/Repub thing the way some others. That being said, I think the Dem Party has tended to accentuate its most liberal elements for the past few years, at the expense of its moderates.
In that sense, the Biden choice is a step in the right direction for the Democratic Party. Biden is more of a centrist.
By the way, I am a registered Democrat and have been all my life. And, I actually thought Clinton was a pretty good President (even on a historical scale). So, it might be a bit hard for you to pin that "right-wing wacko" thing on me, or pretty much any of the bloggers here.
And, what does any of this have to do with this post anyway? The post is about Lesbian Muslim Irshad Manji's commentary on the axing of a book on Ayisha by Random House.
And somehow, you're bringing all this other stuff up. I don't get it.
13 comments:
_ALMS FOR JIHAD_ - BURNED - >>>Cambridge "folded"- threat of law suit by Saudi-UK b-aire'''
_FUNDING EVIL- STILL AVAILABLE - threatened suit by same b-aire as above....
Bullies ALL>>>>
Wake Up America!!!!
Manji, regardless of her percieved value as a liberal Muslim, is dishonest about the core of Islam and her comment from a few years back that Islam should return to its 'clever, fun-loving roots' does her in as an incredibly unserious opponent against jihad.
Since she remains a Muslim, she obviously feels a need to believe Islam has value and can be reformed. Reformed from what? From 'clever, fun-loving roots?'
sir_publius_platypus,
I'm actually turn about this. Part of my wants it to be published in order to tick off the Islamists, but on the other hand, it sounds like this book would glorify pedophilia. I don't want anything that glamorizes child rape, period. I don't want anything out there that does that. I don't want pedophilia to become mainstream. In practice all pedophilia is child rape, since children are not yet rational enough to consent. That's why its called statutory rape.
Interesting point, Damien, as the writer is either oblivious or devious as to her intentions. It's a rotten fact that Mo married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9, but from what I gather, this writer did suggest that it was a love story, which is way out of line. BUT it should be published, for many reasons, least of all for precisely the reason it was pulled. If this was scrapped quietly, it'd be one thing, but its now a story, and one that tells the enemy and his sympathizers that they have power over us, always, Always a bad thing, one that sets precedents for others to use as an excuse not to tell other important truths we need to know about Islam and its founder.
The big question is this:
If that book ought not be published because it glorifies rape and pedophilia, then should not the Koran and the Hadith also be banned?
Well put, Pastorius. I have a moment in The Infidel where Killian, Pigman's creator, points to the Koran when a liberal store worker says that they don't carry hate-filled books, in response to Killian's query whether they carry a Robert Spencer-type book. As with the ton I've written, it may or may not make the final cut, but it's definitely a potent point to be made.
I had a similar problem getting my hands on The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam a few years ago. I was in the store, asked a worker if they had it, he checked it back, brought me a copy, and I went back a few days later to pick one up and it wasn't in the new release section. I ended up having to ask two workers who both told me that they don't have the book, after I mentioned that I had my hands on one a few days before. Then they told me in a huff that the book may come in a few months. I was pissed and went to a manager, who led me to the back of the store where the book was. I'd have fired those two punks who likely were in on doing their part to keep Spencer's book out of people's hands.
Oh, I can tell, Haha.
Pastorius,
Bosch Fawstin,
For the most part I don't believe in censorship except for national security reasons. If I owned a publishing company I would gladly print anti-Jihad, anti-Islamic ideology books, but I wouldn't publish things that I thought promoted evil. That said, I don't think I would support passing a law banning a book like this. I don't think it would be constitutional, unless it contained pornographic photos of a little girl, playing "Aisha."
I know we have to stand up to these Muslim fanatics, but a good part of me will always be glad this thing didn't get published. Unless of course the rumors of it romanticizing Mohammad's "love" for Aisha are greatly exaggerated. Men who do what Mohammad did to Aisha belong in prison or worse.
Damien,
I'm with you. I don't support a law banning books like this either.
And, a simple point which has not been brought up is this:
Anne Rice has a whole series of books like this. One, which I remember reading, was called Cry To Heaven, and it was about a castrati and his bizarre sex life, which began when he was a young boy, before his voice changed. When they realized how beautiful he was as a young boy, and how pure his voice was, they castrated him, so he would always be just so.
Another book, which is actually considered to be high literature, which deals with themes of homosexual pedophilia is Death in Venice by the giant of an author Thomas Mann.
Bizarre sexual content runs through much of Mann's work, as well as Melville, Harold Brodkey (who is one of my favorites, though most people are not aware of him), Paul Bowles, Henry Miller, Oscar Wilde, etc.
Camillle Paglia has a whole chapter, as I recall, dedicated to what she calls "The Beautiful Boy" in the great works of the Western Literary Canon.
Oh yes, and I am forgetting, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.
Lolita is considered, by many, to have been the best novel of the 20th century.
While I abhor pedophilia, I'm with you, we ought not censor literary works, because that is merely censoring the mind of man. We work out our thoughts in words. If we do not work them out, we will not grow as a people.
There are good truths about human nature, and there are dark, sick truths about human nature, and sometimes the two are inextricably bound together, or, as they say, two sides of a coin.
In my opinion, if we attempt to censor the literary mind so that it does not work through some of the darker regions of the human psyche, we will also be censoring the other side of the coin, without even realizing it.
All of this will become very apparent in just a few years from now, as we begin to meld the human brain with the computer through the use of advanced molecular chips (computer processing using molecules). At that point, the human brain will be wired to the internet, and thought will be enhanced and controlled by the internet itself, and vice versa, the internet will be enhanced and controlled by human thought.
Point is, it will be then that we will see exactly how the mind of man is effected when we censor certain thoughts. And, we will have some very deep decisions to be making.
Do we censor thoughts of murder? Do we censor thoughts of terrorism, or rebellion against the state? Do we censor thoughts of sado-masochism? Do we censor thoughts of erotic impulses towards parental figures?
Etc.
My answer is the Libertarian answer.
We do not censor human thought at all.
We only make laws designed to control human action which is directed at hurting others, or taking possession of anothers property through threat of physical coercion.
I actually find this to be the most interesting topic in the world. If it were not for the Jihad, I would be reading, writing, and thinking only about this topic.
If you go to my blog CUANAS, you will find, in my sidebar, links to organizations like the Lifeboat Foundation, The Kurzweil Group, and The Singularity Action Group.
The point of these organizations is that we are on the cusp of fundamental change in the definition of what it means to be human, as the technology to meld brain and computer is just around the corner. The technology is coming so quickly and inevitably that it behooves us to begin making the ethical considerations NOW, instead of when they hit us. It truly is incumbent upon us to begin thinking through these issues. If we don't we will find multiple ways to destroy the human. The nuclear bomb is but a crude metaphor for the kind of destruction we can wreak through the obliteration of the human spirit when absolute surveillance and censorship of the human brain becomes possible.
This blog is wack. You must smoke a sh!tload of reefer to come up with this garbage. Though the Lauryn Hill pic is hot hot hot.
Do any of you clowns know when the end of the world is coming? How long after Obama/Biden take office? Please, give me your worst case scenario. I'm all ears. Oh, and I read Left Behind, so I prefer to drive rather than fly now.
PEACE
I don't understand the reference to the Left Behind series, because I have never read them.
Could you explain what you mean?
Pasties-
You call yoself a pubber and you don't know bout Left Behind? What are you, some kinda closeted log cabin sadist?
In the beginning of the mess of fiction that is Left Behind, people disappear from the plane to go to heaven or hell. Including pilots. I've been hearing about how the end of the world is coming from the w(r)ong wing wackkkos for some time. So now, if it's under 500 miles, I drive.
PEACE
Oh, I get it. You're joking. I thought you probably were. However, since your humor lost the essential element of being funny, well, I wasn't sure.
I am well aware of what the Left Behind series is, and what it's about. I haven't read it because it's really not my bag baby. No, baby, I'm telling you, it's really not my bag.
Anyway, the world will probably not end when Obama takes office. Just as the world didn't end when Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Carter took office, even though people told us it would.
I'm not into this whole Dem/Repub thing the way some others. That being said, I think the Dem Party has tended to accentuate its most liberal elements for the past few years, at the expense of its moderates.
In that sense, the Biden choice is a step in the right direction for the Democratic Party. Biden is more of a centrist.
By the way, I am a registered Democrat and have been all my life. And, I actually thought Clinton was a pretty good President (even on a historical scale). So, it might be a bit hard for you to pin that "right-wing wacko" thing on me, or pretty much any of the bloggers here.
And, what does any of this have to do with this post anyway? The post is about Lesbian Muslim Irshad Manji's commentary on the axing of a book on Ayisha by Random House.
And somehow, you're bringing all this other stuff up. I don't get it.
While we are dissembling, here's a video for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GvrzhVe1XA
Your friend, Pastie.
Post a Comment