There is growing tension in Israel between Orthodox Jews and the country’s gay community. As gays and lesbians have fought for the recognition of same-sex unions, Orthodox Jews have become equally vocal in fighting against such recognition. Into this volatile environment walked an Orthodox mayor who showed little evidence of intellect and even less judgment. Moshe Abutbul, the Haredi mayor of Beit Shemesh, near Jerusalem, stated categorically in an interview that there are no gay people in his city and that such people should be left to health officials and the police. The comments by Abutbul, a member of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, resulted in the filing of a criminal charge for incitement. While Abutbul appears a perfect moron, I do not believe that people should face criminal charges for expressing their views — even the absurd thoughts of a hateful religious bigot.
For many years, I have been writing about the threat of an international blasphemy standard and the continuing rollback on free speech in the West. For recent columns, click here and here and here.
Much of this writing has focused on the effort of the Obama Administration to reach an accommodation with allies like Egypt to develop a standard for criminalizing anti-religious speech. We have been following the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.
This case unfortunately fits that pattern. Abutbul was asked for gays in his city and responded “We have none of those things [gays] here. Thank God, this city is holy and pure. There’s the Health Ministry, let them handle it. The Health Ministry, the police.”
Such ridiculous comments are easily addressed through free speech. Indeed, the media promptly interviewed a gay man living in the city. However, the Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered [LGBT] in Israel filed a criminal charge of incitement with Gideon Saar. The letter from the association’s lawyer, Ben Ilan stated that “[t]hese statements by an incumbent mayor in the State of Israel comparing the LGBT community to lawbreakers who must be dealt with by the police or dangers to public health constitute incitement according to Statutes 144(b) and 144(f) of the penal code.” Saar has denounced Abutbul.
While I respect the work of Ilan to achieve equality for the LGBT community, I do not believe that equality should be achieved at the cost of free speech. We need to fight for civil liberties for everyone, including Abutbul. He is a relic and his views will be eventually left to the dustbin of history with the other views of racist, sexism, and other prejudices. He is not worth gutting free speech to silence ideas that are best rebutted than suppressed. Silencing Abutbul will convince no one. Indeed, it will only add a claim of persecution to his religious fanaticism.
Abutbul’s re-election as mayor last month is already the subject of a police investigation over allegations of voter fraud. Seven of this supporters have been arrested. Abutbul and his supporters are alleged to have used voting cards for missing voters to defeat his secular challenger, Eli Cohen, by around 900 votes. If true, it appears that in the “holy and pure” city described by Abutbul some do not view fraud as a moral problem. Notably, Abutbul’s campaign was widely criticized as nothing short of a “religious war.”
I have faith in the Israel’s secular community which is growing. They are being undermined by an archaic constitutional system that gives small religious parties enhanced power in coalition governments. However, history is on their side. The trend of history has been toward greater tolerance and pluralism. The ultra Orthodox community in Israel is increasingly voicing views that are shared more by extreme Islamic parties in Iran and other Muslim countries. A curious alliance that neither would likely want to admit or embrace. The secularists of Israel should fight such extremism with free speech, not try to silence those who hold opposing views.
What do you think?
Source: Telegraph
Mr. Silverstein, by being born into the current age / time, you missed the orgy of Jews like yourself who were about to stone Harambam (Mymonides) for being heretic. (He was excommunicated…)
You are distorting and contorting the Jewish faith and tradition.
Your “Talmudic” dissertation only strengthen the validity of “Book-carrying Ass!”
Ve’dal…
YO ALL,
I know Johnny is a bit squeamish, when it comes to “prophets”, but here goes:
Why Don’t Muslims Get Buried in Coffins?
DIED WITH A HARD-ON:
Abu al-Fida (1273 – 1331 AD) was a Muslim geographer and historian. He relates that Muhammad suffered from a death erection. From Edward Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”:
Sibi robur ad generationem, quantum triginta viri habent, inesse jactaret; ita ut unicâ horâ posset undecim feminis satisfacere, ut ex Arabum libris refert Stus Petrus Paschasius, c. 2 (Maracci, Prodromus Alcoran, p. iv. p. 55. See likewise Observations de Belon, l. iii. c. 10, fol. 179, recto). Al Jannabi (Gagmer, tom. iii. p. 487) records his own testimony that he surpassed all men in conjugal vigour; and Abulfeda mentions the exclamation of Ali, who washed his body after his death, “O propheta, certe penis tuus cælum versus erectus est” (in Vit. Mohammed. p. 140).
Edward Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” Vol. 9 – Footnote 175
In English, Ali had exclaimed,
“O prophet, thy penis is erect unto the sky!”
Tabari does not mention Muhammad’s erection, but does note that Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Rightly-guided Caliph of Islam, initially refused to believe Muhammad had died.
When the Messenger of God died, ‘Umar b. al-Khattab stood up saying, “Some of the hypocrites allege that the Messenger of God is dead. By God, he is not dead, …
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 184
NOW YOU KNOW WHY MUSLIMS ARE NOT BURIED IN COFFINS – THEY COULDN’T GET THE LID TO CLOSE ON MUHAMMAD’S!
THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK
Selected Fatawah
And Sayings of The
Ayatollah Mosavi Khomeini
— translated into English by Harold Salemson —
with a special introduction by Clive Irving
Bantam Books, 1985 / ISBN: 0553140329
II. 9
On Urinating and Defecating
It is required that everyone, when urinating or defecating, hide his sexual parts from all pubescent persons, even his sister or his mother, as well as from any feeble-minded person or children too young to understand. But husband and wife are not required to hide from each other.
It is not indispensable to hide one’s genitals with anything in particular; one’s hand is enough.
When defecating or urinating, one must squat in such a way as neither to face Mecca nor turn one’s back upon it.
It is not sufficient to turn one’s sex organ away, while oneself facing or turning one’s back on Mecca; and one’s privates must never be exposed either facing Mecca or facing directly away from Mecca.
Urinating and defecating are forbidden in four places: blind alleys, except with the permission of those living along them; the property of a person who has not given permission to do so; places of worship, such as a certain medersas [Arabic schools]; graves of believers, unless one does so as an insult to them.
In three cases, it is absolutely necessary to purify one’s anus with water: when the excrement has been expelled with other impurities, such as blood, for example; when some impure thing has grazed the anus; when the anal opening has been soiled more than usual.
Apart from these three cases, one may either wash one’s anus with water or wipe it with some fabric or a stone.
The urinary orifice can be cleaned off only with water, and it is enough to wash it just one time after urinating. But those in whom the urine comes out through some other orifice would do better to wash that orifice at least twice. This must be observed by women as well.
It is not necessary to wipe one’s anus with three stones or with three pieces of fabric: a single stone or single piece of fabric is enough. But if one wipes with a bone, or any sacred object, such as, for example, a paper having the name of Allah on it, one may not say his prayers while in this state.
It is preferable, for urinating or defecating, to squat down in an isolated place; it is also preferable to go into this place with the left foot first, and come out of it with the right foot first; it is recommended that one keep his head covered while evacuating, and have the weight of his body carried by the left foot.
During evacuation, one must not squat facing the sun or the moon, unless one’s genitals are covered. While defecating, one must also avoid squatting exposed to the wind, or in public places, or at the door one’s house, or under a fruit tree. At the time of the evacuation, one must also avoid eating, dallying, or washing one’s anus with the right hand. Finally, one must avoid talking, unless one is absolutely forced to or is addressing a prayer to Allah.
It is better to avoid urinating standing up or urinating into hard ground, or into an animal hole, or into ware, especially stagnant water.
It is recommended not to hold back the need to urinate or defecate, especially if it hurts.
It is recommended to urinate before prayers, before going to bed, before having sexual intercourse, and after ejaculating.
After urination, one must first wash the anus if it has been soiled by urine; then one must press three times with the middle finger of his left hand on the part between the anus and the base of the penis; then one must put his thumb on top of the penis and his index finger on the bottom and pull the skin forward three times as far as the circumcision ring; and after that three times squeeze the tip of the penis.
A woman has no special instructions to follow after urinating; if she afterward notes some moisture at the vaginal orifice which she cannot judge as pure or impure, the said moisture remains pure and in no way stands in the way of her performing ablutions or praying.
So long as he’s an elected official, the more free speech the better so voters know what to do with him. One glorious aspect of the free speech is you get to know where people like this mayor stand so you can go stand somewhere else where you don’t have to hear him make that awful sound.
Please proceed.
“Lady” retorted Johnson, “you looked for them!”
Will be laughing that up all day! Thank you, Diogenes!
What do you expect…..
In a literary party, honoring Ben Johnson’s big opus – his Dictionary of the English Language, a dame approached Johnson and reproached him for including obscene terms in the Dictionary.
“Lady” retorted Johnson, “you looked for them!”
Got it, Mr. luckylarrysilverstein???
RobinH45 -You’re the Man!
THE “HOLY BABYLONIAN JEWISH TALMUD”
The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):
“My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament).”
Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in “Judaism on Trial,” quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:
“Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible … God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own … anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture.”
The Talmud (and not the Scriptures) is the legal/canonical text which obligates those who follow the Jewish religion. It is from the Talmud that laws, regulations, and world views are drawn. In practice, the everyday life of the modern religious person is drawn and influenced by the Talmud.
Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,
“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1
Yebamoth 60b,
Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. 2 Yebamoth 60b
Has Rabbi ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.
The Pharisees Endorsed Child Sex
The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.
Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3
In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia:
“How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” 4
1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
3 Sanhedrin 76a.
4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
OUT OF BABYLON
It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.
As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.
But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.
Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.
SEX WITH A “MINOR” PERMITTED
What exactly did these sages say?
The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law:
“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22)
One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,
“All agree that the (sexual) connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” Sanhedrin 69b 5
Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. 6
“…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” 7
The Talmud also says,
“A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).”8
Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
SEX AT 3 YEARS & 1 DAY
In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.
R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanhedrin 55b)
A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(. Yebamoth 57b)
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yebamoth. 60b)
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yebamoth. 60b)
[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yebamoth. 60b)
The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”
The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” 9 But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.
The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”
9 Sanhedrin 55a.
NO RIGHTS FOR CHILD VICTIMS
The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” 10
The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,
“When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” Kethuboth 11b.
In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.
Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.
Pedophilia Widespread
Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yebamoth. 60b:
There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.
The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai,
“A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12
These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yebamoth. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says:
“… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”
The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.
10 Kethuboth 11a.
11 Kethuboth 11b.
12 Yebamoth 60b.
13 Sanhedrin 76b.
A FASCINATION WITH SEX
Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.
The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.
Today, the Talmud’s outspoken pedophiles and child-rape advocates would doubtlessly spend hard time in prison for child molestation.
The Oedipus complex was the invention of Sigmund Freud!
Freud originally discovered, in the treatments partially conducted under hypnosis, that all his Jewish patients, both male and female, had been abused children and recounted their histories in the language of symptoms. After reporting his discovery in Jewish psychiatric circles, he found himself completely shunned because none of his fellow Jewish psychiatrists was prepared to share the findings with him. Freud could not bear the isolation for long. A few months later, in 1897, he described his patients’ reports on sexual abuse as sheer fantasies attributable to their instinctual wishes.
Freud’s father was a pedophile! In a letter to his friend Wilhelm Fliess, he wrote:
“Unfortunately, my own father was one of these perverts and is responsible for the hysteria of my brother (all of whose symptoms are identifications) and those of several younger sisters. The frequency of this circumstance often makes me wonder.”
Fliess’s son, Robert Fliess exposed his own father as being another pedophile who had sexually abused him when he was a child.
A fascination with sex indeed!
not fair for larry silverstein to have all the fun…. so here’s something to read that doesnt involve the muslims…
Israeli policy is based on racism, hate, aggression and deceit,
says Max Blumenthal in his book, “Goliath: Life & Loathing in Greater Israel.”
A survey of Jewish Israeli attitudes on Operation Cast Lead [Gaza War Dec. 2008-Jan. 2009) concluded that the public’s “consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians, and insensitivity to their suffering… These attitudes are the product of indoctrination.”
By Chris Hedges
“Imploding the Myth of Israel”
(Abridged & Edited by henrymakow.com)
Israel has been poisoned by the psychosis of permanent war. It has been morally bankrupted by the sanctification of victimhood, which it uses to justify an occupation that rivals the brutality and racism of apartheid South Africa. Its democracy–which was always exclusively for Jews–has been hijacked by extremists who are pushing the country toward fascism.
Many of Israel’s most enlightened and educated citizens–1 million of them–have left the country. Its most courageous human rights campaigners, intellectuals and journalists–Israeli and Palestinian–are subject to constant state surveillance, arbitrary arrests and government-run smear campaigns.
Its educational system, starting in primary school, has become an indoctrination machine for the military. And the greed and corruption of its venal political and economic elite have created vast income disparities, a mirror of the decay within America’s democracy.
And yet, the hard truths about Israel remain largely unspoken. Liberal supporters of Israel decry its excesses. They wring their hands over the tragic necessity of airstrikes on Gaza or Lebanon or the demolition of Palestinian homes. They assure us that they respect human rights and want peace.
But they react in inchoate fury when the reality of Israel is held up before them. This reality implodes the myth of the Jewish state. It exposes the cynicism of a state whose real goal is, and always has been, the transfer, forced immigration or utter subjugation and impoverishment of Palestinians inside Israel and the occupied territories. Reality shatters the fiction of a peace process. Reality lays bare the fact that Israel routinely has used deadly force against unarmed civilians, including children, to steal half the land on the West Bank and crowd forcibly displaced Palestinians into squalid, militarized ghettos while turning their land and homes over to Jewish settlers.
APARTHEID
The 2008 murderous rampage is not, as Blumenthal understands, an anomaly. It is the overt policy of the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who advocates “a system of open apartheid.” Israel, as Blumenthal points out, has not lifted its state of emergency since its foundation. It has detained at least 750,000 Palestinians, including 10,000 women, in its prisons since 1967.
It currently holds more than 4,500 political prisoners, including more than 200 children and 322 people jailed without charges, Blumenthal writes, including those it has labeled “administrative detainees.” Israel has a staggering 99.74 percent conviction rate for these so-called security prisoners, a figure that any totalitarian state would envy…
The racist narrative, once the domain of the far right and now the domain of the Israeli government and the mainstream, demonizes Palestinians and Arabs, as well as all non-Jews. Non-Jews, according to this propaganda, will forever seek the annihilation of the Jewish people. –
See more at: http://henrymakow.com/2013/11/Israel-Sinks-Deeper-into-Moral-Abyss%20%20.html#sthash.D35NUgPi.dpuf
–
and Larry before you attempt to like others call me anti semitic.. i didnt write this and the owner of the blog i read it on he’s jewish his name is henry makow.. and the authors name is max blumenthal……
http://henrymakow.com/2013/11/Israel-Sinks-Deeper-into-Moral-Abyss%20%20.html
I don’t believe that this Mayor should be charged criminally for his statement:
“We have none of those things [gays] here. Thank God, this city is holy and pure. There’s the Health Ministry, let them handle it. The Health Ministry, the police.”
Though it was stupid to be sure. Had he advocated taking action against Gay people than perhaps my opinion might change feeling action was needed. The Mayor is a Fundamentalist Jew and he follows in the footsteps of almost all fundamentalist of all faiths. Homosexuality threatens Fundamentalist beliefs because it opens up human possibilities that their rigid view of the world finds scary. From their ill-informed view if it was banned in the Torah, it should still be banned 2,500 years later. Fundamentalists find modernity in society also threatening because their beliefs are limited to their religious texts. As such, in my opinion, as I’ve stated before, Fundamentalists pose a threat to any society that would allow even a modicum of free action by individuals.
Po @minutebol 1, November 12, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Dredd
I think there’s been a misunderstanding. My comment that free speech does not apply to an office holder implied that the rights to free speech that the public enjoys to, basically say whatever they want,is not extended to government officials. it was in reaction to the idea that the mayor’s speech fell under freedom of speech, and that therefore he was free from censure.
Obviously I do not know Israeli law, but this event is seen and discussed through the prism of our culture and law, therefore I am talking humanistically, not legally.
============================
Cool.
No. 1 Nation in Sexy Web Searches?
Call it Pornistan
By Kelli Morgan
Published July 13, 2010
FoxNews.com
This article was updated on July 14.
They may call it the “Land of the Pure,” but Pakistan turns out to be anything but.
The Muslim country, which has banned content on at least 17 websites to block offensive and blasphemous material, is the world’s leader in online searches for pornographic material, FoxNews.com has learned.
“You won’t find strip clubs in Islamic countries. Most Islamic countries have certain dress codes,” said Gabriel Said Reynolds, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Notre Dame. “It would be an irony if they haven’t shown the same vigilance to pornography.”
So here’s the irony: Google ranks Pakistan No. 1 in the world in searches for pornographic terms, outranking every other country in the world in searches per person for certain sex-related content.
Pakistan is top dog in searches per-person for “horse sex” since 2004, “donkey sex” since 2007, “rape pictures” between 2004 and 2009, “rape sex” since 2004, “child sex” between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, “animal sex” since 2004 and “dog sex” since 2005, according to Google Trends and Google Insights, features of Google that generate data based on popular search terms.
The country also is tops — or has been No. 1 — in searches for “sex,” “camel sex,” “rape video,” “child sex video” and some other searches that can’t be printed here.
Google Trends generates data of popular search terms in geographic locations during specific time frames. Google Insights is a more advanced version that allows users to filter a search to geographic locations, time frames and the nature of a search, including web, images, products and news.
Pakistan ranked No. 1 in all the searches listed above on Google Trends, but on only some of them in Google Insights.
“We do our best to provide accurate data and to provide insights into broad search patterns, but the results for a given query may contain inaccuracies due to data sampling issues, approximations, or incomplete data for the terms entered,” Google said in a statement, when asked about the accuracy of its reports.
The Embassy of Islamic Republic of Pakistan did not reply to a request for an interview.
In addition to banning content on 17 websites, including islamexposed.blogspot.com, Pakistan is monitoring seven other sites — Google, Yahoo, Bing, YouTube, Amazon, MSN and Hotmail — for anti-Islamic content, the Associated Press reported in June.
But it’s not to censor the Pakistani people, Reynolds said. It’s to shut out the rest of the world.
“[It] could lead to conversion, which would undermine the very order of the state,” he said. “Part of protecting the society is making sure that there is no way it could be undermined in terms of foreign influences.”
Pakistan temporarily banned Facebook in May when Muslim groups protested the “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” page, where users were encouraged to upload pictures of the Prophet Muhammad. The page remained on Facebook, but Pakistani users were unable to view it, said Andrew Noyes, manager of Facebook’s Public Policy Communication.
And while Pakistan is taking measures to prevent blasphemous material from being viewed by its citizens, pornographic material is “certainly” contradictory to Islam, too, Reynolds said.
The country’s punishment for those charged with blasphemy is execution, but the question remains what — if anything — can be done about people who search for porn on the Web.
“It’s a new phenomenon,” Reynolds said.
luckylarrysilverstein,
You are a stupid jerk.
Thanks Dredd for giving voice to what the whole world, unanimously, was just thinking. I am now curious as to what might make a person turn this way. luckylarry, would you please just indulge me and let me into whatever happened that informs your thinking? (Then again, my wife always wonders what I open the door to Jehovha’s witnesses!)
WHY ALL SUNNI MUSLIMS ARE SODOMITES
Satan Attends Every Muslim Childbirth; He Touches Every Infant
Except for Mary and her Son Jesus, all babies cry during their birth, because Satan touches them… (Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.641)
Whenever a Muslim child is born, Satan pricks it; that is why the child cries. Only Mary and Jesus were not pricked by Satan…(Sahih Muslim, 30.5837, 5838)
Say prayer during sexual intercourse, and Satan will not touch your child…(Sahih Bukhari, 4.54.503
ARABIC POETRY GLORIFIES SODOMY
O THE JOY OF SODOMY
So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
Turn not away from it–
therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle
standing to her mate.
A lad whom all can see girt with sword
and belt not like your whore who has
to go veiled.
Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
very best to mount them, for women are
the mounts of the devils
ARAB POET Abu Nuwas:
Song
Love a woman? You’re an ass.
‘Tis a most insipid passion
To choose out for your happiness
The idlest part of God’s creation.
Let the porter and the groom,
Things designed for dirty slaves,
Drudge in fair Aurelia’s womb
To get supplies for age and graves.
Farewell, woman! I intend
Henceforth every night to sit
With my lewd, well-natured friend,
Drinking to engender wit.
Then give me health, wealth, mirth, and wine,
And if busy Love intrenches,
There’s a sweet, soft page of mine
Does the trick worth forty wenches.
TILL I DIE
Tell me no more of constancy,
The frivolous pretense
Of old age, narrow jealousy,
Disease, and want of sense.
Let duller fools on whom kind chance
Some easy heart has thrown,
Despairing higher to advance,
Be kind to one alone.
Old men and weak, whose idle flame,
Their own defects discovers,
Since changing can but spread their shame,
Ought to be constant lovers,
But we, whose hearts do justly swell
With no vainglorious pride,
Who know how we in love excel,
Long to be often tried.
Then bring my bath and strew my bed,
As each kind night returns:
I’ll change a lover till I’m dead,
And fate change me for worms.
ALL SUNNI MUSLIMS FINGER F–KED BY SATAN AT BIRTH
In a broadcast on the UK’s Fadak TV on May 24, 2012, London-based Shiite cleric named Yasser Habib calmly and dispassionately asserts that all non-Shiite males — especially the Shiites’ Muslim rivals, the Sunnis — are sodomized at birth by the devil, and grow up to become “passive homosexuals”, i.e., the “bottom” of a homosexual pair who is penetrated in anal sex.
ISLAMIC CLERIC CONFIRMS MUSLIM MEN ARE SODOMITES
You know how some people insult Muslims by calling them crude names that are the equivalents of sodomites and bestialists (butt- and goat-f**kers)? It turns out at least the sodomite insult is true! We have it straight from the mouth of none other than a Muslim cleric — a London-based Shiite cleric named Yasser Habib.
In a broadcast on the UK’s Fadak TV on May 24, 2012, Habib calmly and dispassionately asserts that all non-Shiite males — especially the Shiites’ Muslim rivals, the Sunnis — are sodomized at birth by the devil, and grow up to become “passive homosexuals”, i.e., the “bottom” of a homosexual pair who is penetrated in anal sex.
TRANSCRIPTION OF YASSER HABIB:
“Anyone who consents to being called ‘Emir of the Believers’ is a passive homosexual. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, for example, who willingly assumed this title, was, without a doubt, a passive homosexual. The same goes for the caliphs Othman Ibn Affan, Muawiyya, Yazid, and the rules and sultans of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, as well as some of the rulers and sultans of our day and age.
For example, the king of Morocco bears this title. This is how you know that he is a passive homosexual. This is in addition to the evidence revealed by Western media, which showed that the current king of Morocco is indeed a passive homosexual who belongs to the homosexual community. This was leaked from his palace by his assistants, his servants, and his ‘boys,’ whom he would penetrate and who would penetrate him. They fled to Europe, sought asylum, and exposed all this.
CLERIC YASSER HABIB EXPOSES UMAR
It is told (in the hadith) that Umar Ibn Al-Khattab had an anal disease, which could be cured only by semen. One should know that this is a well-known medical condition, which is also mentioned in sacred texts. Someone who, God forbid, has been penetrated in the anus, a worm grows within him, due to the semen discharged in him…
A disease develops in his anus, and as a result, he cannot calm down, unless. he is penetrated again and again.
The Shiites are undoubtedly protected from this disease, and from committing this abominable and hideous act. As for the Nasibis (who hated the prophet Muhammad’s family), they are definitely afflicted with this homosexuality.
One of the devils is present at the birth of every human being. If Allah knows that the newborn is one of our Shiites, He fends off that devil, who cannot harm the newborn. But if the newborn is not one of our Shiites, the devil inserts his index finger into the anus of the newborn, who thus becomes a passive homosexual. If the newborn is not a Shiite, the devil inserts his index finger into this newborn’s anus, and when he grows up, he becomes a passive homosexual.
If the newborn is a female, the devil inserts his index finger into her vagina, and she becomes a whore. At that moment, the newborn cries loudly, as he comes out of his mother’s womb. Note that some children cry normally at birth, while others cry loudly and incessantly. You should know that this is the work of that devil, according to this narration.”
Islam is NOT a religion, but an insane political system and sex cult populated by the severely mentally impaired.”
When cleric Yasser Habib “says ‘passive homosexual’, he is referring to the receptive, submissive, female-equivalent partner. Dominant, inserting male homosexual activity is universally accepted in Islam. He has no problem with that. It’s grown men ‘catching’ that he has a problem with.”
AND THE MAYOR THINKS HE HAS PROBLEMS:
Here are the Muslim countries and how they placed in the top five world ranking of various bestiality-related internet search terms:
Pig Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
Donkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
Dog Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 3)
Cat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Egypt (No. 3) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
Horse Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Turkey (No. 3)
Cow Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Iran (No. 2) Saudi Arabia (No. 4)
Goat Sex: Pakistan (No. 1)
Animal Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Morocco (No. 2) Iran (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
Snake Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Malaysia (No. 3) Indonesia (No. 4) Egypt (No. 5)
Monkey Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Indonesia (No. 3) Malaysia (No. 4)
Bear Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Saudi Arabia (No. 2)
Elephant Sex: Pakistan (No. 1) Egypt (No. 3) United Arab Emirates (No. 4) Malaysia (No. 5)
Fox Sex: Saudi Arabia (No. 1) Turkey (No. 4)
Dredd
I think there’s been a misunderstanding. My comment that free speech does not apply to an office holder implied that the rights to free speech that the public enjoys to, basically say whatever they want,is not extended to government officials. it was in reaction to the idea that the mayor’s speech fell under freedom of speech, and that therefore he was free from censure.
Obviously I do not know Israeli law, but this event is seen and discussed through the prism of our culture and law, therefore I am talking humanistically, not legally.
Po @minutebol 1, November 12, 2013 at 11:59 am
Free speech does not apply to an office holder.
…
=========================
“… Moshe Abutbul, the Haredi mayor of Beit Shemesh, near Jerusalem …” – JT
In the U.S. free speech rights applies especially to government officials.
Government officials must not violate the free speech rights of others, even though in some cases and under the same conditions private people could do so.
What law of Israel are you talking about?
Ah, the ol’ Citizens United thought process, a carry-all applied to free speech enabling ignorance of the complex issue of governance … in this case leadership, a mayor, in the ethical principles that shape and steer the governing process.
Leadership is a critical ingredient of good governance and the Mayor now represents not just the Orthodox Jews of his political party but also the gays. He is no longer “people” exercising free speech but a leader who must practice the ethical principles of good governance because his position is that of a leader who others will follow.
His words fully indicate that his idea of good governance exiles gays from the mainstream of society to police and health officials’ control and as the leader of that community as a whole, he has the power to lead that act of governance. That is indeed criminal. It is a Citizens United thought process that places ALL eggs in one basket which in this case is a basket called Free Speech.
Fire, Fire!!
Gays, Gays!!
Ah, that purity thing again. Why is it that fundamentalists always want to control other’s behavior and lifestyle? They obviously feel they have a Devine imperative. Having said that, the pushback from the LGBT community was extreme. I think we need to be careful to not employ the very same tactics to control speech and behavior as the fundamentalists do. That desire to make speech or actions “pure” seems like a fools errand.
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
Free speech does not apply to an office holder. The office, and its holder, represent the community as a whole, not a portion of it. The responsibility that comes with office starts with the refraining from advocating for only one part of that community, and ends with the refraining from demonizing any specific part of that community.
Free speech does not exist in a vacuum, not when it targets a group for asserted, continuous and potentially violent discrimination. Society always have some members that need extra protection from abuse, and while we may debate who those members are, and the basis of their designation for protection, we cannot argue the fact that a mayor, in the function of his office, is not a citizen, and therefore is subject to more stringent rules regarding his right to free speech.
Criminal charges for those comments seems anti-free speech.
A recall election or contributions to his next opponent would have sufficed.