Indonesia, Indecency, and Islam (Playboy too)

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
The man who publishes a toned-down version of Playboy magazine in Indonesia will not be jailed after he was cleared of violating indecency laws.
Editor-in-chief Erwin Arnada had included photographs of women in underwear, some with partially exposed breasts, but no nudity.
He had faced a maximum prison term of more than two years and hailed the judge's ruling as a victory for free-speech.
The decision not to jail him has angered religious hardliners in the world's most populous Muslim nation.
The pictures in the Indonesia version of Playboy are less risque than in other magazines sold in the country.
But rock-throwing conservatives demanded its offices be closed immediately after the first edition hit newsagents a year ago.
The judge at South Jakarta District Court, Efran Basyuning, said pictures which were presented during the trial could not "be categorised as pornography".
More than 600 police officers were outside court as a group of demonstrators protested nearby.
Mr Arnada said: "Playboy Indonesia is grateful to the readers and advertisers who have supported the magazine through this difficult time."
More than 100 members of the Islamic Defenders' Front, a small group with a history of attacking bars and nightclubs, gathered nearby shouted "Allah Akbar! We reject the verdict!"
One of the organisers, Bachtiar Ali, said: "This is a bitter pill. Do we have to wait until our wives and daughters are raped? We will keep fighting.
"Pornography is a moral crime that destroys the nation's faith."
Click to expand...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1259315,00.html

I tried to cut the article down, but it's so hard. Especially when it's got such great lines as "rock-throwing conservatives" and that guy at the end who ratchets up the rhetoric to 11.

Before you say that it can't happen here - just remember we've got a fundie in the office and plenty of our own "rock-throwing conservatives" to deal with.
 
naked women are the devil, plus if you can see women sans clothes now, whats the point in killing yourself to be with the naked virgins?
 
[quote name='camoor']

Before you say that it can't happen here - just remember we've got a fundie in the office and plenty of our own "rock-throwing conservatives" to deal with.[/QUOTE]

I haven't heard of any hard-line Muslims being secretly gay or any Mullah who have molested their scribes. Then again, I don't get out much.

I think if any protesting group would tend to be violent, it would be hard-line liberals. Conservatives have the most to lose: shoot someone, gun laws tighten. Besides, haven't seen too many conservatives burn flags and effigies of our troops.
 
[quote name='camoor']Before you say that it can't happen here - just remember we've got a fundie in the office and plenty of our own "rock-throwing conservatives" to deal with.[/quote]

Because, when you get right down to it, Christianity and Islam are JUST THE SAME!

They both insist that women be wrapped up in canvas and beaten to instill discipline!

They both insist that gays must be stoned. Man, gay stonings are a HUGE problem here...

And, really, like, there are equal amounts of Christian terrorists and Islamic terrorists!
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Because, when you get right down to it, Christianity and Islam are JUST THE SAME!

They both insist that women be wrapped up in canvas and beaten to instill discipline!

They both insist that gays must be stoned. Man, gay stonings are a HUGE problem here...

And, really, like, there are equal amounts of Christian terrorists and Islamic terrorists![/quote]

Ashcroft used more then ten thousand of my taxpayer dollars to cover up the left boob of a statue (a statue!) - imagine how far they would go if the Christian fundies wrested control of the legislature.

Christian fundies are trying to label porn perusal an "addiction" - and we all know what happens to addictive substances (see: war on drugs). That's right kids, they get restricted, then BANNED

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/porn.addiction/index.html

"A lot of people think Christians sure don't struggle with this," Gross said. "The stats don't lie: Christians are consuming pornography. And to me, it's not a surprise."
A nonscientific poll on XXXChurch.com found that 70 percent of Christians admitted to struggling with porn in their daily lives. Church officials are not immune either. According to Gross, some 76 percent of pastors he surveyed said they, too, have a problem. Gross says he's not surprised so many Christians find themselves struggling with addictions to pornography, considering just how mainstream and easily accessible it has become.
Click to expand...

See what happened? In one paragraph, we went from consuming to ADDICTION. Addictions are scaaaary, addictions require big daddy government to save us poor underlings from temptation!

Gay bashing is a huge problem here.

And I don't see a difference between a Muslim planting a bomb on a crowded sidewalk and a Christian blowing up an abortion clinic, but getting back to the context of the story, rioters are different from terrorists.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I haven't heard of any hard-line Muslims being secretly gay or any Mullah who have molested their scribes. Then again, I don't get out much.

I think if any protesting group would tend to be violent, it would be hard-line liberals. Conservatives have the most to lose: shoot someone, gun laws tighten. Besides, haven't seen too many conservatives burn flags and effigies of our troops.[/quote]

I don't know what you are talking about in the first sentence.

Conservatives are typically leaning more towards nationalism, the more extreme conservatives will tend to say things like "you're either with us or against us". Extreme conservatives will quickly rachet up the rhetoric about law enforcement efforts, and are eager to declare wars (example: war on terrorism), Jihads, or Crusades (example: "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.")
 
[quote name='camoor']And I don't see a difference between a Muslim planting a bomb on a crowded sidewalk and a Christian blowing up an abortion clinic, but getting back to the context of the story, rioters are different from terrorists.[/quote]
But you can clearly see the difference between how other Christians and Muslims react.

Ashcroft used more then ten thousand of my taxpayer dollars to cover up the left boob of a statue (a statue!) - imagine how far they would go if the Christian fundies wrested control of the legislature.
Click to expand...
Boobs EVERYWHERE would be covered up! GASP!

Christian fundies are trying to label porn perusal an "addiction" - and we all know what happens to addictive substances (see: war on drugs). That's right kids, they get restricted, then BANNED
Click to expand...
Leftie fundies are trying to do the same to fats and carbon output. :p

Conservatives are typically leaning more towards nationalism, the more extreme conservatives will tend to say things like "you're either with us or against us". Extreme conservatives will quickly rachet up the rhetoric about law enforcement efforts, and are eager to declare wars (example: war on terrorism), Jihads, or Crusades (example: "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.")
Click to expand...
Imagine a fictional scenario. Imagine if Michael Moore, Al Gore, any left-leaning individual goes to speak at a college campus. Imagine the protests.

Now, imagine the same college campus being visited by, say, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter, the Minutemen and imagine the protests.

If you don't see the latter being broken up by violently unruly students, you are blind. Hell, those were all examples of past incidents.

See, for all the 'unnuanced' conservative rhetoric you see, you can also see twice as many leftists carrying their very own 'the personal IS the political' fetish way too far.

Your cherrypicking of rhetoric to fit your "OH NOES EEEVIL CHRISTIANAZIS ARE OUT TO GET ME" worldview isn't exactly the most convincing argument.

Gay bashing is a huge problem here.
Click to expand...
There aren't many better protected groups in society than gays in America. In Iran on the other hand?... well, good luck. Watch out for flying rocks!
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']But you can clearly see the difference between how other Christians and Muslims react.[/QUOTE]

So ... the extreme wings act similarly, but the moderates are ... totally different?

Eh?
 
Well, if you think the scale of the violence and the acceptance (or lack of condemnation) by the community are the same between Islam and Christianity, then I say you are willfully ignorant.

Here's an experiment. Go to Iran, and explain in rational terms that you would usually use for Christianity about the violence inherent in the system. Or, better yet, ask Aayan Hirsi Ali or Theo van Gogh about Islam.

You might have a SMIDGE of trouble reaching Mr. van Gogh for comment though.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Well, if you think the scale of the violence and the acceptance (or lack of condemnation) by the community are the same between Islam and Christianity, then I say you are willfully ignorant.[/QUOTE]

I'd say that being able to empirically correlate a propensity for violence to being a member of a particular religion makes you the best sociologist in the whole wide world. Since I'm not willing to grant that without some rigorous studies behind you, I'd say that you're conflating a number of issues to make the problem seem cut and dry, not unlike the "Black people are more apt to commit crimes" baloney of decades past. Even if I'm willing to grant a difference in levels of violence (I'm not), the chestnut about "lack of condemnation in the community" is hogwash. Actually talking to some Muslims would do wonders for dispelling that misconception. Maybe you're not in a position to actually do that, so maybe it's not willful ... but it's still ignorance.

[quote name='RollingSkull']Here's an experiment. Go to Iran, and explain in rational terms that you would usually use for Christianity about the violence inherent in the system.[/QUOTE]

Hrm. How about you DON'T go to Iran, but to other Muslim countries, like Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, or even Indonesia, and see what happens in that scenario. A difference in response would indicate perhaps your assertion is a bit too broad, no?

[quote name='RollingSkull']Or, better yet, ask Aayan Hirsi Ali or Theo van Gogh about Islam.

You might have a SMIDGE of trouble reaching Mr. van Gogh for comment though.[/QUOTE]

Huh. People killed by Muslims. Wow. Good thing I couldn't possibly name anyone killed by Jews or Christians for religious reasons. I'm sorry; snark aside, I completely fail to see your point. I mean, I get what you're implying, but "Muslims are more violent than Christians" doesn't follow, particularly from the weaksauce you're throwing up as examples.
 
[quote name='trq']I'd say that being able to empirically correlate a propensity for violence to being a member of a particular religion makes you the best sociologist in the whole wide world. Since I'm not willing to grant that without some rigorous studies behind you, I'd say that you're conflating a number of issues to make the problem seem cut and dry, not unlike the "Black people are more apt to commit crimes" baloney of decades past. Even if I'm willing to grant a difference in levels of violence (I'm not), the chestnut about "lack of condemnation in the community" is hogwash. Actually talking to some Muslims would do wonders for dispelling that misconception. Maybe you're not in a position to actually do that, so maybe it's not willful ... but it's still ignorance.[/quote]

RACISM!

Good grief, is everyone on the internet SO vested in their high school history that anyone who even DISPARAGES a brown minority is filled with RACISM! I should think we're all a bit older than that sort of cartoonishness. Christianity and Islam are exactly the same, when you get right down to it. Because, to imply Islam is worse is to imply that brown people are worse than white people. And GOD FORBID you ever, in the slightest way, appear racist.

I should think I need only point to Comedy Central's refusal to display Mohammed in South Park vs. what they did display Jesus doing as abject proof of which religion wields more violence: The only one that can cause the US media to blink.

Huh. People killed by Muslims. Wow. Good thing I couldn't possibly name anyone killed by Jews or Christians for religious reasons. I'm sorry; snark aside, I completely fail to see your point.
Click to expand...

Aayan Hirsi Ali is alive and well and still spreading word.
 
[quote name='trq']Hrm. How about you DON'T go to Iran, but to other Muslim countries, like Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, or even Indonesia, and see what happens in that scenario. A difference in response would indicate perhaps your assertion is a bit too broad, no?[/QUOTE]

Someone doesn't know very much about a country such as Egypt.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Someone doesn't know very much about a country such as Egypt.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, but I'm going to stand by my statement. Egypt, for all its faults, isn't in the same category as Iran or even Saudi Arabia. I think their ongoing conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood shows their overly harsh restrictions have very little to do with religion, in the end.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']RACISM!

Good grief, is everyone on the internet SO vested in their high school history that anyone who even DISPARAGES a brown minority is filled with RACISM! I should think we're all a bit older than that sort of cartoonishness. Christianity and Islam are exactly the same, when you get right down to it. Because, to imply Islam is worse is to imply that brown people are worse than white people. And GOD FORBID you ever, in the slightest way, appear racist.[/QUOTE]

I hate to take the wind out of your sails, but you're rebutting a point I didn't make. I didn't make any accusations of racism, nor would I, considering we're not talking about race here.

What I AM saying is that you're selectively picking and choosing negative behavior and attributing it to adherents of a specific religion, while whitewashing, diminishing, and otherwise ignoring the same instances of abhorrent behavior from members of another religion. It's an error of objectivity and logic; a matter of "willfull ignorance," if you'd like. I can absolutely go tit for tat all day long, "If Muslims did this, Christians did that." But that wouldn't prove anything, because that type of reasoning -- what you're doing here -- is flawed from the get go.

[quote name='RollingSkull']I should think I need only point to Comedy Central's refusal to display Mohammed in South Park vs. what they did display Jesus doing as abject proof of which religion wields more violence: The only one that can cause the US media to blink.[/QUOTE]

Really? THAT'S your conclusive proof? Because Comedy Central didn't give Mohammed the Jesus treatment in South Park, Muslims must be more violent more violent than Christians?

First of all, just because someone acted in a certain way doesn't mean those actions were justified. Again, let's go with people who cross the street to avoid black folks. (Remember: logic, not race) Is that proof of anything derogatory towards blacks? How is this different?

Second, I'd love to see where Comedy Central execs clearly state this decision was because of a fear of Muslim violence, rather than, say, a fear of igniting a letter writing campaign, accusations of racism, or any similar shitstorm.

Third, you've obviously never heard of the American Family Association, who -- among other successes -- got Ford to pull their advertising in gay and lesbian publications for a time, killed an ad where a priest lusts after an SUV, and got the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts nixed. So what's your point about influence proving violence then, exactly?
 
Religion, it's a killer. Anyway, I wonder if metal music and black t-shirts are still banned in Indonesia.
 
[quote name='trq']I hate to take the wind out of your sails, but you're rebutting a point I didn't make. I didn't make any accusations of racism, nor would I, considering we're not talking about race here.[/quote]

Mincing words. Ignoranceracsexhomoismphobia whatever. One slur of ignorance is very much like another.

What I AM saying is that you're selectively picking and choosing negative behavior and attributing it to adherents of a specific religion, while whitewashing, diminishing, and otherwise ignoring the same instances of abhorrent behavior from members of another religion. It's an error of objectivity and logic; a matter of "willfull ignorance," if you'd like. I can absolutely go tit for tat all day long, "If Muslims did this, Christians did that." But that wouldn't prove anything, because that type of reasoning -- what you're doing here -- is flawed from the get go.
Click to expand...

And yet you think "Well, I can GoogleDetective as many stories as you can" proves that both religions are exactly the same and there is no difference at all between them violence-wise. Thus, since my readings indicate that Muslims are more violent, simply because I don't see them as exactly the same, I'm favoring one over the other. In other words, your proof that I am ignorant is that I don't prescribe to your world view where nothing can possibly tip the scales one way or the other.

Really? THAT'S your conclusive proof? Because Comedy Central didn't give Mohammed the Jesus treatment in South Park, Muslims must be more violent more violent than Christians?
Click to expand...

Your if-then logic needs work, but I'll let it slide.

First of all, just because someone acted in a certain way doesn't mean those actions were justified. Again, let's go with people who cross the street to avoid black folks. (Remember: logic, not race) Is that proof of anything derogatory towards blacks? How is this different?
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing what you're trying to say here. Are you accusing CC of racignoranotryphobahomoism?

Second, I'd love to see where Comedy Central execs clearly state this decision was because of a fear of Muslim violence, rather than, say, a fear of igniting a letter writing campaign, accusations of racism, or any similar shitstorm.
Click to expand...

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_04_09-2006_04_15.shtml#1144984968

Like... FIVE seconds on Google. Geez, for a guy who can produce a litany of Christian villainous acts ON CUE...

Third, you've obviously never heard of the American Family Association, who -- among other successes -- got Ford to pull their advertising in gay and lesbian publications for a time, killed an ad where a priest lusts after an SUV, and got the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts nixed. So what's your point about influence proving violence then, exactly?
Click to expand...

Well, let's see. What happens when you advertise in gay and lesbian publications? The AFA boycotts you...

What happens when you display Mohammed? Well, I shouldn't need to tell you.

Look, the correct answer to any quandary is not always the exact midpoint between two extremes. To hammer situations into that mold is usually the height of self-importance disguised as 'tolerance,' especially when anyone who sees things differently is immediately an ignorant, judgmental bigoracophobeohomosexihater.
 
Coincidentally, the AFA... surely they must have taken issue with South Park's portrayal of Jesus defecating on an American flag...

EDIT: I chose the South Park example specifically because I knew you probably have bookmarked about 50 different examples of Christian-related violence. Dueling GoogleDetective gaming ISLAM VS. CHRISTIANITY THE FINAL SHOWDOWN would not have helped the situation.

Of course, there's also that little thing where the plural of anecdote is not data...
 
One final note, I do wanna try one round of GoogleDetective against you. What's the Christian equivalence to the semi-regular riots going on in France in the recent months?
 
You want to know what the best part of all this is?

Children sell Playboy Indonesia on the streets at intersections. My wife has had several of them try to sell her the mag while in a taxi waiting for the light to change. I understand why the Indonesian muslims don't want Playboy here but they are focusing their efforts in the wrong place.

It's been a while since I've seen them selling Playboy on the streets (most likely because of the pending litigation) but I'm sure it won't be long before it is back out there. I'll try to get a picture of these child street vendors if I can.
 
[quote name='trq']Thanks, but I'm going to stand by my statement. Egypt, for all its faults, isn't in the same category as Iran or even Saudi Arabia. I think their ongoing conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood shows their overly harsh restrictions have very little to do with religion, in the end.[/QUOTE]

Iran and Saudi Arabia's restrictions have nothing to do with religion either. These dictatorial regimes only suppress speech to maintain their hold on power, not for religious reasons (although that's what they'd like you -- and especially their own populace -- to believe).

Anyway, here is some further info on Egypt if you are interested. It's a similar situation.

http://www.derechos.org/wi/2/egypt.html
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20041110-090757-7062r
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6164798.stm
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/egypt14701.htm
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Iran and Saudi Arabia's restrictions have nothing to do with religion either. These dictatorial regimes only suppress speech to maintain their hold on power, not for religious reasons (although that's what they'd like you -- and especially their own populace -- to believe).

Anyway, here is some further info on Egypt if you are interested. It's a similar situation.

http://www.derechos.org/wi/2/egypt.html
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20041110-090757-7062r
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6164798.stm
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k7/docs/2007/01/11/egypt14701.htm[/QUOTE]

I think we're sort of making the same point, just in a different fashion. I was disputing RollingSkull's assertion that Iran's frequently authoritarian tone towards criticism is due to an inherent violence in Islam. Since there are Muslim countries where that tone isn't present -- or is present, but not usually feigned to be religious in nature, as with Egypt -- then his conclusion doesn't follow.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']One final note, I do wanna try one round of GoogleDetective against you. What's the Christian equivalence to the semi-regular riots going on in France in the recent months?[/QUOTE]

First off, it'd help to define exactly which riots you mean, since they've had quite a few. Do you mean the student labour riots, complete with burning cars, smashed storefronts, and the police tear-gassing crowds? Or the 2005 riots, spurred by the death of two immigrant teens, one Muslim, one not? Or the extremely recent rioting, precipitated by the alleged mistreatment of an illegal Congolese immigrant (Christian, by the way), again participated in by all kinds of lower-class, poor immigrants ... who in France happen to be largely Muslim?

So I guess it depends on what you attribute the rioting to. You're fond of the "If Muslims misbehave, it's because they're Muslims, but if Christians do it, it's because of some other factor" error. The students rioting were largely Christian, so I guess I could use that as my counter-example. I could also trot out our own L.A. riots. After all, I wonder what religion those rioters self-identified as? I suspect it doesn't really matter which one I go with, because no matter what I choose, you'll wave your hands and equivocate.

When poor people, Christian or Muslim, feel badly enough shit on, sometimes there are riots. With Christians, you see that it has more to do with economics and discrimination than with their religion. With Muslims ... well, they're Muslims. That's as far as you're willing to think it through. That's why you're wrong. And yes, ignorant.
 
[quote name='trq']When poor people, Christian or Muslim, feel badly enough shit on, sometimes there are riots. With Christians, you see that it has more to do with economics and discrimination than with their religion. With Muslims ... well, they're Muslims. That's as far as you're willing to think it through. That's why you're wrong. And yes, ignorant.[/quote]
Wow, and I bet you also know what number I'm thinking of right now, too.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Mincing words. Ignoranceracsexhomoismphobia whatever. One slur of ignorance is very much like another.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, who brought up "willful ignorance" in the first place? And again, I didn't use any such "-ist" insult, so stop trying to slip away under cover of "Slur! Slur!"

[quote name='RollingSkull']And yet you think "Well, I can GoogleDetective as many stories as you can" proves that both religions are exactly the same and there is no difference at all between them violence-wise. Thus, since my readings indicate that Muslims are more violent, simply because I don't see them as exactly the same, I'm favoring one over the other. In other words, your proof that I am ignorant is that I don't prescribe to your world view where nothing can possibly tip the scales one way or the other.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think that. In fact, I'm saying the opposite: that dredging up stories of misbehavior by either group proves little. (Your own mention of "the plural of anecdote is not data" being particularly relevant here.) Yet that's all you're willing to do/are capable of doing regarding Muslims. How is it that's insufficient evidence to condemn any other group? So it's not a matter of tipping the scales: it's a matter of keeping your thumb on one side while you do it.

[quote name='RollingSkull']Your if-then logic needs work, but I'll let it slide.[/QUOTE]

I was repeating YOUR logic. If there's something wrong there, feel free to point it out.

[quote name='RollingSkull']I'm not seeing what you're trying to say here. Are you accusing CC of racignoranotryphobahomoism?

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_04_09-2006_04_15.shtml#1144984968

Like... FIVE seconds on Google. Geez, for a guy who can produce a litany of Christian villainous acts ON CUE...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I guess I really should have bothered to search for it myself, but I'm trying to avoid any unnecessary Google Fu here. Care to address my first point about this, though?

[quote name='RollingSkull']Well, let's see. What happens when you advertise in gay and lesbian publications? The AFA boycotts you...

What happens when you display Mohammed? Well, I shouldn't need to tell you.

Look, the correct answer to any quandary is not always the exact midpoint between two extremes. To hammer situations into that mold is usually the height of self-importance disguised as 'tolerance,' especially when anyone who sees things differently is immediately an ignorant, judgmental bigoracophobeohomosexihater.[/QUOTE]

I don't necessarily disagree. However, I don't think that's the issue at hand.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Wow, and I bet you also know what number I'm thinking of right now, too.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I admit that was complete speculation. So go ahead and prove me wrong.
 
[quote name='trq']Oh, I admit that was complete speculation. So go ahead and prove me wrong.[/quote]
Oh good Lord. Is this what passes for debate on the internets? Make asinine speculation and put the onus on your opponent to prove the negative? Then, when I don't satisfactorily do so, YOU WERE PROVEN RIGHT!
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']Make asinine speculation and put the onus on your opponent to prove the negative? [/QUOTE]

That is your argument for the war in iraq in a nutshell.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That is your argument for the war in iraq in a nutshell.[/quote]

Oh look, I have a fanboy.

Anyway, trq, with all due respect, I think I shall bow out at this point. I don't like the look of some of the arguments I've made earlier, and I am in the logically difficult position of having to argue against logic that states "Islam is violent. Christianity is violent. There's no difference!" Plus, I missed the boat on complaining about moderate Muslims not actively taking back their identity, reforming the condoned violence in the Koran, et al and instead hit the wrong target. As well as about a half dozen other mistakes.

I like parts of my case though, but, still, overall, I am in a hole, so I shall stop digging and bow out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top