I think that's an allegory and it refers to helping hungry people and killing their hunger.

I do agree with Ms. Korchak:

"I understand the fear of Jews and why some might have an issue of it being up. I understand the reaction of trying to get them removed," said Charlotte Korchak, a senior majoring in history and the incoming president of 'SC Students for Israel and a member of the center. "At the same time, is that really going to help? I'm Jewish and those are hard to read and hard to comprehend, but it's their religion and it's a historical thing. To leave them out would be a lie."

Taking them down arguably makes it easier to avoid discussing the hadith and deny their existence or meaning. It is probably better to leave them up, or take the entire site down. And the answer to ugly speech is more free speech.

If the Latino Student Union put up a website that suggested, say, "fight against the Canadians...and kill them," do you think that would fly?

Heh. It might, but only on "South Park".

Jerry,

Normally I would agree with you ... the best answer to ugly speech is more free speech. Unfortunately this is more than inciting hatred (which should not be censored) ... I believe this is inciting violence. Free speech does not cover incitement to violence.

This part of the Hadith tells Muslims that there will come a day where they will fight Jews and nature will help them. There is also a part of the Qur'an that tells Muslims that there will come a day where Muslims will fight the "vile" Jews and even the rocks will tell the Muslims that there is a Jew behind them (the rocks) and to come and kill him. If this is not incitement to violence I do not know what is ...

There are some bits in the Torah and Bible that could do with some censorship as well. Murdering children for sassing their parents is pretty offensive to most Americans.

Indeed Katie, but ask yourself this. How many Jews kill their smart mouth kids in accordance with scriptual law, and how many muslims kill jews?

I've been wondering whatever happened to that "incitement to riot" limitation? It's damned good to have someone act like it still exists.

This current attitude of any speech, all speech goes is not free speech but repression. Let's face it, there's no freedom at all without limits to said freedom being carefully outlined. Government is a necessary evil because anarchy would only result in the weak minority getting repressed by the strong majority.

We can't tell the Muslims to stop shouting kill the infidels or rappers to stop shouting kill the cops. Meanwhile, they're enacting laws against criticizing religion period. As an Atheist, I'm feeling not only repressed but pretty damned threatened. And I may mock their religion but I'm not yelling for their deaths.

What's next? It'll be okay to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one no matter who gets trampled underfoot?

luj, I can think of homosexuals killed by Christians who were following scripture. Society dealt with it by outlawing the behavior and punishing offenders, not banning the offending parts of the Bible.

This is not so much in defense of Muslims as saying all of the Big Three religions are fairly equally dangerous, and the danger doesn't go away by banning the literature.

The big 3 are all equally dangerous?

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

It is true that there have been occasions where a homosexual was murdered because he was homosexual. However that is because one person went overboard with his beliefs.

That is a far cry from mass pledges of women to raise their children to be suicide bombers.

Europe and America plopped a bunch of European Jews in the middle of a bunch of Arab countries partly because of the "promised land" concept; a crusade mentality helps fuel American support for war in the Middle East; Christians, Jews, and Arabs are all scrapping over the same piece of desert now. Some Christians in Africa burn their neighbors alive for "witchcraft". I see all of them as taking pieces of scripture to their logical conclusion; just as Muslim suicide bombers are taking the Koran to it's logical conclusion. Arguing context and analogy is BS, it's all advice to live by from warlike desert tribes. I like Western philosophy better... including what was based on, but _altered from_, original Judeo-Christian lit.

I still believe that Trig is Bristol's kid!

Question ... did the Bible actually say that homosexuals should be killed. I don't honestly recall. If it does, and say a Christian group decided to post this at a university, I would be for its removal as well ... remember that inciting hatred and inciting violence is not the same thing. Another thing, USC removing something that could incite violence is not the equivalent of banning the Bible or Qur'an. Christians and Muslims are still free to read whatever they please. USC simply decided that these types of materials are not appropriate on its campus.

Fair enough katie, and I agree with you btw. Its just that most christians and jews ignore those parts of the bible while most muslims do not

My understanding of hadiths is that they are words or deeds attributed to Mohammed by one or more other individuals. In other words, they amount to hearsay. Equally egregious acts of barbarism can be seen as advocated for by both Old and New Testaments, such as when the Jews went around circumcising non-Jewish males against their will.

That's true, lujlp, more Christians choose not to act on the more violent aspects of the Bible. I do think, though, that if USC is going to censor the Koran on its websites, the Bible and Torah should get the same treatment, and if people don't like that idea then they need to look at their reasoning and biases.

I didn't know stones could talk! And they're antisemetic too.

I think to be fair they should put something up on the student's website about naming the school mascot Mohammed-see how that goes over with the crybabies.

If I read Amy's post right, they did not censor the Koran. They sensored the hadith, which was clearly stated NOT a part of the koran. So no, the bible and torah don't need the same treatment. And yes, free speech ends when you are inciting violence. Something many people conveniently forget these days.

No christian group would be allowed to post a "kill the muslims" commandment on their website. The University does get to decide what goes on University-supported websites. Just like I get to decide who can come in my house.

It's freethinking equality people like you, Katie, who are going to have us all dead or under Islam law in the next 50 years. Pop your burka on now and be ahead of the crowd! At least christians will agree to your right to live and not be christian. That's a plus in our favor.

Oh, and as to christians killing gays-no. Psycho murderers kill gays. What they say their reason is doesn't matter. And the bible condemns gluttony about 30 times more often than homosexuality, something all the fat-asses in this country conveniently overlook. But i digress.

Why single out Muslims, Amy?

Why not reference the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, who advocates killing Jews in his nazi-inspiring work On the Jews and Their Lies? Or Pope Pius XII et al within the Catholic church, many of whom were complicit in Nazi genocide?

What about Rabbi Meir Kahane, who still has a large albeit underground following today? He unequivocally advocated for the killing of arabs.

Perhaps not, but I'll bet Yeshiva U and Brandeis U did.

Of course he was not given a website--He was assassinated long before age of internet.

I cited him as an example to show how a western-educated Jewish religious leader can put words from his religious book into a context that advocates committing murder.

I think they should publish all of it -- and everything that Mecha and La Raza and the Klan and the Nation of Islam desire to rant about as well.

If you leave this hateful nonsense in the shadows it festers and grows. Bring it out in the light and let everyone laugh it into oblivion.

Anybody can put words anywhere. The question is, how does the group he's from respond to it?

The Jews banned his party from their government, and outlawed his movement completely.

The Saudis and others, meanwhile, are funding terrorism right and left. They have a mandate to do it from Islam, and they take that mandate quite seriously.

Might your real name be O'Sama? What's with pushing all this phony-baloney propaganda?

Again, I'm no fan of religion, but as long as people go worship the Imaginary Friend and leave me alone, I'm not gong to worry about them.

Gog, I'm for putting the language out to criticize it, same as you'd discuss "Fire in a crowded theater." This wasn't that sort of usage, and if you want to advocate killing Jews, perhaps it shouldn't be on USC's dime.

I cited him as an example to show how a western-educated Jewish religious leader can put words from his religious book into a context that advocates committing murder.

Kahane is roundly condemned. There's no talk of "moderate Jews" like there is of "moderate Muslims," meaning those who don't advocate murdering non-Muslims -- and homosexuals and women who don't go around in 140 degree heat wearing head-to-toe pup tents.

Charles: The Bible does not call for death to homosexuals.

The word for homosexuality does not appear in the Hebrew language, but the act is defined in the Bible with word pictures, as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah "Send your guests out so we can have sex with them". Genesis 19:1-29. You can however find these interpreted into the English language as "homosexual". Leviticus 18:22 simply calls it detestable, 1 Corinthians 6:9 calls it wicked and immoral. There are other citations, BUT MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, the Bible does NOT call for the murder of homosexuals. There WAS an adulteress who was to be stoned to death for her sexual sins (very Old Testament-style of warped justice, where was the man she did this with, I wanna know?!?!) but was forgiven by Christ with the well-known quote "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Nor does being homosexual condemn you to Hell; the only "unforgivable sin" is Blasphemy.

There are always going to be sociopaths with inhibition and boundary issues. Some of them choose to dress themselves in validation with their theology of choice; others use their wealth, fame, intellect, whatever they have to their advantage. Some poor bastards are legitimately mentally ill (not to be confused with the garden variety assholes we deal with every day) and have religion as their only solid construct to deal with the world. My heart breaks for them, since they're only trying to make sense of things without all the parts in place.

We're both no fans of religion.

But I disagree that there is something inherently bad within Islam itself. The dysunction stems from a lack of education within Islamic societies/communities (both among religious leaders and followers). Thogh perhaps more prevalent, I see it as no different from the sort of religious justification skinhead-kkk-kach prty types use to support their violence against others.

Have you actually read the Koran, or does what you know about Islam come mostly from anti-Muslim sources?

But I disagree that there is something inherently bad within Islam itself. The dysunction stems from a lack of education within Islamic societies/communities (both among religious leaders and followers). (Julie O'Riordan)

You err by applying Western (classical) liberal categories onto a non-Western non-liberal religion. Islam denies any separation between church, state, and individual conscience. It divides the word into those who have submitted, dar al-Islam, and those who must be made to submit by war, dar al-Harb.

Insofar as a Muslim is tolerant, he is equally less devout. There may be tolerant Muslims, but there is no tolerant Islam.

Don't believe it? Simply judge the political and social freedom, or lack thereof, in Islamic states. It's quite obvious.

Kahane was most assuredly not assassinated either before the age of the Internet, or the BBS, or the FTP server, listservs or the many ways that other groups did use the pre-HTTP/HTML Internet.

That he as a large underground group of followers could make for a very scary horror movie.

Incitement to riot, and actual threats are one thing, that I do think makes it reasonable to take down a site or portion of a site. I am leery of hate-speech laws. Too often hate-speech is really just speech I don't like and that I claim offends me.

In this case, at USC, a University, I am very curious as to the followup. Will there be any on campus discussion of these hadiths? An explanation of what they mean when actually in context? How they don't mean what they seem to mean?

This was a counter-productive decision. In his speeches and rallies, Hitler endlessly advocated the hatred and murder of Jews. This incitement led directly to the Holocaust. So what should be done with copies of Mein Kampf and films of the Nuremberg Rally? If they were all banned and destroyed, then how could anyone fully comprehend the evil and the allure of Nazism? Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Q: In a free society, under what circumstance should incitement of murder and genocide be protected speech?

A: When this incitement is part of the historical record of an evil ideology that must be known and understood to prevent it from gaining poltical power.

"Mein Kampf" has been a bestseller in the Muslim world since it was first published. And "Mein Kampf" translates as "My Jihad" in Arabic.

Sanitizing evil is wrong. For the sake of our civilization, all of us infidels must come to an understanding of the true nature of Islam, and it's parallels to other evil ideologies like Nazism. This can't be done by studying censored, sanitized versions of the Koran and hadith, but only the real thing, incitement to murder and all.

"Islam denies any separation between church, state, and individual conscience."

This is the nature of theocratic societies in general. Members of many other religions have their crusades and ethnic cleansings, read decimation of native Americans, mass killings of Muslims in Bosnia, the Jenin massacre et al. So, ignorant Muslims are not above the fray. It's just that Islamophobia is popular at the moment, as it takes the focus off of ourselves, and the wrongdoings of powerful others.

So there's my point. Thanks Juliana. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill homosexuals. Those that kill in the name of God are not following the Bible. When Muslims kill Jews it is not a deviation from Islam. I have read translations of the Qur'an and the Hadith. I was left confused by all those proponents of Islam that said we were taking it all out of context. Then I decided to read multiple biographies of Muhammed. I figured I would let the founder's actions speak for the religion. Islam, the way its founder meant it to be practiced, is about subjugating or killing non-believers, leading not only defensive but offensive wars, killing those that criticize you, not allowing for freedom of religion, punishing perceived injustices with massacres, not making any distinction between Mosque and State, etc. etc. etc. I found Muhammed had more in common with Napoleon and David Koresh than Jesus (I'm an atheist btw). So if Islam is not a moderate religion are there moderate Muslims? I believe there are. They are simply the Muslims that no longer practice a pure form of Islam.

It's just that Islamophobia is popular at the moment, as it takes the focus off of ourselves, and the wrongdoings of powerful others.

I'd dispute your particular examples, but here you are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.

I can be concerned and even outraged by what I learn of what is happening in the name of Islam. At the same time, I can be concerned and outraged by what Bush is doing in Iraq, or what the administration is doing to civil rights, or what we are doing in many areas.

Just because what we are doing is wrong in many ways, is no reason to dismiss or ignore what we learn about Islam 2008.

We can actually do both, and Amy Alkon is a pretty good example of that.

Have you actually read the Koran, or does what you know about Islam come mostly from anti-Muslim sources? O'Riordan

You didn't answer this question yourself. Have YOU read the Koran? I have read translations by both Muslims and non-Muslims and if you are saying that Islam is a religion of peace I'd bet you haven't.

Well actions speak louder than words. Every Muslim I have ever spoken to states that to be a Muslim one must seek to emulate the prophet in every way ... when you read about how this man lived, that is a terrifying proposition.

>> There may be tolerant Muslims,
>> but there is no tolerant Islam

> Well said, Jeff.

Yeah. I'm gonna steal that.

"....actions speak louder than words." On that same note; "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care". This could/ should be a mantra for anyone trying to "enlighten" others in the name of their religion.

"Charles: The Bible does not call for death to homosexuals."

Oh, really?

So, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, why?

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Oops.

-----

And let us not forget that two wrongs don't make a right. The nasty behavior of one sect is no excuse for another's.

Radwaste,

Did you bother to read the entire thread? I had asked before whether the Bible called for the death of homosexuals (because I could not for the life of me remember the answer). Juliana answered that nowhere in the Bible does it state this. Since I do not carry a Bible with me everywhere I did not argue. My point was that incitement to violence is unacceptable whether it comes out of the Qur'an or the Bible.

ooops ...

Just a reminder for those who may have forgotten: the Right to Free Speech applies to actions by the government. USC is a private college--it doesn't need to comply with the 1st Amendment ... so you don't need to go into an "incitement to riot" argument, or whatever.

USC did not ban publication of the hadiths. They did not ban Islam. They simply decided that one group of students should not have a Web site hosted and paid for by the university on which to advocate the murder of another group of students. The Muslim Student Association is free to purchase its own Web site and to continue to publish the hadiths.

Why not reference...Pope Pius XII et al within the Catholic church, many of whom were complicit in Nazi genocide

Sadly, many Catholics were complicit. But Pius XII was not.

Why not reference the words of Moishe Sharat, the second prime minister of Israel: "I told Pope Pius XII that my first duty was to thank him and, through him, the Catholic Church on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews. We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church."

Or reference Pinchas E. Lapide's book, Three Popes and the Jews. In it Lapide critically examines Pope Pius XII and comes to the conclusion that the Catholic Church under Pius XII was responsible for saving approximately 860,000 Jews from the Nazi death camps.

During World War II, no less august a news organ than the New York Times, in several editorials, praised Pius as a "lonely voice" crying out in the darkness against Hitler and the Nazis.

Before he became Pius XII, he was Cardinal Pacelli and ghost wrote Pope Pius XI's 1937 book With Burning Sorrow. In it German Catholics were urged to resist all appeals to abandon Catholicism for the "quasi-paganism of Hitler's German National Church."

Keep in mind that 3,000,000 catholics were also murdered by the Nazis.

Note,

I know I have not forgotten how the 1st Amendment works, and I don't think anyone was really saying that USC was not within its right (as a private insitution) to do what it did, we were simply debating whether it was the right way to deal with the situation.

Charles, the quoted post was not yours. And yes, of course, death is prescribed for gays, right there in the Bible - one of the easiest things there is to search for content.

You'd think some Bible fans are running for office, so eager some are to deny their own record!

Sarah Palin and her in-tongue-speaking, gay-praying-away ilk can go to hell. Who the fuck are they to tell me what I can do with my body and who I can fuck? I hate these candidates!!!!! Obama IS the lesser of two evils.
The end.

Banning the literature from a site provided by student fees works for me. If the student group wants to forgo any support from the college funds, and raise their own money, then they can put up whatever hate-filled crap they want. Is there an Aryan Brotherhood group on campus?

O'Riordan - Are you serious??????? What the hell does that have to do with this issue? Get a grip and some prozac.

Karl Marx stated - "Religion is the opiate of the Masses". He wasn't wrong.

It seems that when someone chooses to become a highly religious person, they turn off the brain, and follow blindly. They tend to stop thinking.

That is the major problem I have with Islam. As far as I can see, no Muslim questions the teachings, at all.

Give Christianity its due, there wouldn't be so many different versions of it, if there wasn't dissent on the teachings and questioning of what the bible means. But sadly, you have those, who don't question what they are told about the bible or look for any other meanings than what that person in the pulpit is telling them.

Probably why I dislike organized religion.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei

> when someone chooses to become a
> highly religious person, they turn
> off the brain, and follow blindly

Only in a few, often trivial respects. It's a religious planet. Get over it.

> Probably why I dislike
> organized religion.

That's the only kind there are.

Pardon me...

...Only kind they is .

"the only "unforgivable sin" is Blasphemy." !!!??? So a murderer is more forgiveable than I am?

FUCK GOD!

I think Charles said it best about the difference between Islam and other religions.

However, at this point in America (not Europe), I feel a larger threat from the Christian nutters. Mainly because they have more power here. Look at the two equally offensive you must blend church-state presidential campaigns now taking place.

I definitely do not feel free to disbelieve. Of course, I've no fucking problem rebelling.

And, when all is said and done, you cannot force either belief or disbelief. You can only force people to lie about it.

I definitely do not feel free to disbelieve. Of course, I've no fucking problem rebelling.

And, when all is said and done, you cannot force either belief or disbelief. You can only force people to lie about it.

If you believe this, you are weak. There's nothing else to say about it.

If you cannot look a priest in the eye and say "God is dead" and mean it, your lack of faith is weak.

Whenever the JW's show up at my house, I hit them with some variant of "God is dead". It never fails to crash them. The looks on their little faces are priceless.

Radwaste-

Ooops indeed, thank you for the correction. Was going on my notes from a sermon six weeks ago; we had ten different references and this was not included. I wonder why my pastor didn't; probably for this very reason. Leviticus looks to make Pharisees of all of us, too much emphasis on the rules and squat about the Spirit.

Dang, reading Leviticus, it pretty much offs everybody, doesn't it? This is yet another example of why churches break apart; Lev 21:10 dictates death for adulterers, but John 8:2-11 advocates mercy since none of us is without sin, therefore not fit to judge.

I tend to get in trouble when bringing up questions about the Bible being "God-Breathed". If it is, and God is perfect, why does the Bible contradict itself like this? Do this in mixed company at church and you get some reeeeaallly funny looks....

Dang, reading Leviticus, it pretty much offs everybody, doesn't it? This is yet another example of why churches break apart; Lev 21:10 dictates death for adulterers, but John 8:2-11 advocates mercy since none of us is without sin, therefore not fit to judge.

Leviticus = Old Testament
John = New Testament

Jesus advocated a few changes to traditional Jewish laws (Talmudic laws were almost as strict and intrusive as Sharia). That's why the Jewish elders were so anxious to get rid of him; he was a bigger threat to their power than the Romans were.

brian, I refer you to the end of my post which apparently you did not read. Weak? Hardly. Doesn't mean I don't live in a society that tries to coerce belief on me. God is dead? Hell, no. God never fucking lived. I just tell 'em I'm not interested in their fairy tale. But we do say the exact same thing whenever someone tells us we're going to hell. I've been saying "see you there" for decades.

Ah, Conan, but there's also that nice bit about not coming to bring peace but with a sword to divide. Jesus was not as nice as Christians make him out to be. He's also a fictional character.

TG -

I just don't see the coercion. That's the thing that gets me. You see some shadowy conspiracy to MAKE you believe in Jesus (who did, by the way, exist. He's in more than just the Bible). I'm telling you that no such conspiracy exists anywhere in the world. Just because a few loudmouth flakes believe it doesn't make it the Christian prerogative.

However there IS a conspiracy amongst the leaders of the Islamic world (as in they run whole countries) to spread their religion throughout the world by violent means.

In other words, you consider a few random flakes more dangerous than a calculated and concerted effort of several nation-states.

That's what frightens me about you and those who think like you. You're willing to make a decision based upon an emotional response to a stimulus that is not there.

He's also a fictional character.

A person by that name did exist. And he did preach sermons and advocate reform of Talmudic law. Whether his being the son of God was true or psychotic delusion is up to each person's own belief system.

"A person by that name did exist. And he did preach sermons and advocate reform of Talmudic law. Whether his being the son of God was true or psychotic delusion is up to each person's own belief system."

Ah, well, another person prone to fallacy.

The existence, heritage and behavior of any person does not depend on the viewpoint of the observer or their beliefs. This is because beliefs are never a complete assessment of reality.

I'm sure you were just too hurried to point this out.

This is because beliefs are never a complete assessment of reality.

This from the man who claims that the existence of more than one religion refutes the existence of God.

You might want to get your consistency checker updated. I think its on the fritz.

Not at all, brian.

It's not "my claim". Just observe the claims of various religions yourself, and compare them. Please resist any tendency you might have to "pound to fit".

The term, "belief" is not restricted to religious issues at all. This is not an idle or frivolous observation. Look here.

Ah, well, another person prone to fallacy. ... The existence, heritage and behavior of any person does not depend on the viewpoint of the observer or their beliefs.

His existence (generally accepted though still up for debate) or behavior is not what I said was up to a person's belief system.

I said his claim to be the Son of God was. Absent a DNA test, each person will have to decide whether he thinks Jesus was the Son of God, the son of Joseph, or the son of some randome shepherd Mary got busy with before her betrothal to Joseph.

For an alternative explanation of why USC's actions were counter-productive as well as actually unconstitutional, here is a post from "The Free For All", a group of bloggers that usually post on free speech issues.

Was this censorship necessary? Charlotte Korchak, incoming president of USC's Students for Israel and a member of the Hillel Jewish Center, thinks not. "I understand the fear of Jews and why some might have an issue of it being up. I understand the reaction of trying to get them removed," she told the Trojan. "At the same time, is that really going to help? I'm Jewish and those are hard to read and hard to comprehend, but it's their religion and it's a historical thing. To leave them out would be a lie."

Not only would it arguably be a lie, but it would certainly be a statutory violation if the action was challenged in court. Because of a 1992 California statute known as Leonard's Law, First Amendment protections are applied to all private colleges and universities in the state. The Bill of Rights applies only to governmental organizations, including public universities, but this law extends protection to private institutions of higher education. Thus, the same standards for censorship apply to USC (a private university) as those schools funded by the state, giving administrators far less leeway in restricting student expression.

To uphold their censorship, administrators would have to show that the website was likely to produce "imminent lawless action."...

"I said his claim to be the Son of God was. Absent a DNA test, each person will have to decide whether he thinks Jesus was the Son of God, the son of Joseph, or the son of some randome shepherd Mary got busy with before her betrothal to Joseph."

And regardless of personal opinion, no observer's decision will affect the identity, real or otherwise, of the subject.

To analogize, you might believe I have red hair. Yet it's not changing to suit you, no matter how ardent you are. Your belief has no effect on reality whatsoever.

Cause, meet effect. Look at belief standing over there by himself.

-----

The bulk of people have no idea what a belief is. This leads to all sorts of unpleasant surprises.

True, believing or not believing his claim to be the Son of God won't affect the reality of whether he actually is the Son of God.

But it will have an effect on the behavior and worldview of the believer or the non-believer.

And, since the claim cannot be proven (unlike your red hair), the truth of the claim is, at least for now, a matter of choosing whether to believe it or not.

Kind of like if I told you I like Brussels sprouts. Short of seeing me eat them with relish, you'll have to take me at my word...or not. Your choice won't change the reality of my opinion of the taste of Brussels sprouts. It might, however, affect what you choose to serve for dinner should I be a guest at your house.