wikipedia does not respect religion

That's an interesting perspective - thanks, Gauharjk.

All others, however, the questions posed remain at large. The sound I'm hearing is the whistling of tumbleweed, through the empty town of good faith debate...

 

I guess I was not patient enough or missed something.. All I got was a lot of double speak.. I guess that is just me. Lies, Lies, its all lies I tell you!!!

 

I just haven't gotten any answers, outside of Gauharjk's reply. Still waiting.

 

Don't agree. I notice they left out conservatism. Many conservatives have been advocates of free speech. Libertarian != Liberal. It's compatible with right and left leaning philosophy.

I'm not seeking a restriction. It's amoral to impose my will upon someone else. That however does not preclude me from making my difference of opinion known, or trying to construct an argument or campaign for my position.

We have a disconnect here. I agree with what you are saying, but we're not covering the full argument. Wikipedia does not have an obligation to provide free speech. None. It has the private property right to allow, ban, delete, edit etc. If they choose to offer free speech, completely unhindered, or with minor conditions, that is also their right. As well as the right to complete censor anything they choose. It is their site.

In your home, you can say anything you want. You do not however have a right to come to my home and say whatever you want. I have the right to ask you to leave, to stand on the sidewalk etc. It's well within my provate property rights to ask you to remain silent in my home.

The government however, cannot prohibit private or public displays of free speech, but still has to maintain private property rights. This is why you can protest at the State Capitol, but not in my garage. One is public, one is private.

We're in perfect agreement so far. I made my difference of opinion known, based upon my personal bias towards respect and tolerance for religious prohibitions or expectations. That the images were not necessary (IMO), not that Wikipedia had committed some blatant form of intellectual terrorism.

Again, I'm for respecting the integrity of these religions when presenting the information about them. No more would the "Piss Christ" belong on a page about Christianity, than should a depiction of Mohammad PBUH belong on a page about Sunni Islam.

It's merely a matter of re-organization, not unlike when you go into a store with magazines, and the pornographic ones are not bottom shelf or mixed in with the gardening monthlies. You made a point (paraphrasing) that the "Piss Christ" was art, but not necessarily good art. Nonetheless, you support the right to self-expression.

Likewise, I support the right to display the images, even if I don't agree with them, however that doesn't mean I think they should be integrated into an article that points of the very clear ideal of not using these images to depict the prophet.

If you want to draw, paint, sketch etc a depiction of Mohammad PBUH, you have that right. I also have the right to disagree with your artistic choice. I also am under no obligation to provide you any patronage.

Likewise, the Muslims who are offended should vote with their feet, and avoid Wikpedia, protest against Wikipedia or work their way through the editor classes at Wikipedia to effect change.

You see, your argument about institutions stripped of their art because it offends someone is just one radical side of the argument. How about the institutions being obligated to display my art, as untalented as I am, in an equal or even greater position of prominence than established works and artists?

It's property rights issue, not a freedom of speech one.

Sure, you can request I remove it. And I just might, or I might not. If I do not, I may lose your respect or "friendship".

Rights don't come without consequences. One has to be willing to accept those consequences as a part of the package. Whether it is free speech or silence, there is no such thing as an isolated action.

 

Where does this obligation come from? How did they receive this mandate?

Not at all. Free speech is free speech, whether you want to hear it or not.

IMO, this goes beyond individuals who practice a religion. It is about the religion itself. In my mind, it's intellectually dishonest to depict a character when the religion itself prohibits depiction of that character. A better way is to break it out separately.

Steroids are prohibited in baseball. Would it make sense to have a picture of steroids on a baseball wiki page? Or on a page about "Steroids in Baseball"?

It's a subtle insinuation with the former that Baseball = Steroids, when in fact Baseball != Steroids.

Precisely. It's a free market decision. Just as Wikipedia is under no obligation to cater to religious influences, it is also under no obliation to not cater to religious influences. That's freedom.

Because discretion is actually a subset of the right to free speech. If we all practiced free speech absolutely, without shades and variances in how it is exercised, we'd be telling our wives their cooking sucks, our daughters that they are fat, our bosses that they are capitalist pigs, and our neighbors that they are thieves.

But we don't. In order to live within a society, some discretion is required. It doesn't mean you can't believe what you want to believe, but that you are under no obligation to make your beliefs known at all times, to all people, in all circumstances.

 

You touched on the key issue here.

I do think a wiki page on Baseball does need a discussion of steroids, as without it, it is incomplete. And, while Baseball would not like the association, it is a historical fact and should not be censored just because Baseball doesn't like it.

Wiki, for what it is worth, does discuss steroids in the Baseball page, in addition to a page just on that issue. source Source 2

I fully agree it is up to Wiki to determine what is on their pages, but I do not think it is the least bit intended to be offensive to Muslims. They may chose to be offended, but they could also take issue many pages in Wiki or in school libraries, newspapers, etc. I am not willing to censor educational and information materials to cater to a single offended position.

How do you feel about public libraries? Should they display books with images of the Prophet or should that not be allowed as well as a possible offense against Islam? Would you take the position that books depicting the Prophet should not be available in a Public Library in the United States?

 

It appears that you do not respect Wikipedia's religion, which values Freedom of Expression.

Here's a brilliant idea. How about you follow your religion and let other people follow their own religions.

Right now, you are trying to force Wikipedia to follow your religion -- and that is wrong.

 

well said Will...

 

It's a good working description of free speech, and very commonsense. Don't censor someone else's speech - allow all their right to speak freely. This is the "yeoman's standards." Libertarianism, by definition, is:

(Wiki). I'd ask you to define "left" and "right" philosophy, because in my book, libertarianism is the apotheosis of individual liberty. Curbing the free expression of it is the antipode.

Oh, Guerilla - but you very much are. You are in agreement with Ala's stated position (however flawed in my opinion), that the images should be removed out of respect to the sensibilities of others. Removed. I cannot construe "removed" any other way but "restriction" on free expression.

You are right, and I am wrong here. Good points. Wiki is choosing, it seems, to offer an open source forum. In the article at the heart of the debate, as you know, it has included an unbiased description of the issue, indicating indeed, for most of the world's sunnis, it is haram.

You aren't answering the problem here, Guerilla. As I said, Islam bans all idols - all. Which is why the Taliban, in its strict interpretation of Sharia, destroyed the centuries-old Buddha statues, to the world's great loss. Strictly prohibited. By your stand, all pieces of art, all artifacts of history, that are, or were at one time, idols, are to be removed from public viewing at private institutions, out of respect for Islam.

Moving beyond that, as I said, there are many things many religions consider offensive in much of what is shown, discussed, taught today. You must, by your stand, advocate the removal of these items as well, or else you are not standing on principle, but a bias towards Islam (and only one interpretation of Islam) - which is fine, by the way, so long as we don't couch this in terms of an unbiased statement of principle. As I said above - no, or yes, on principle; there can be no other. And these are but a couple of examples; I offered others above - offensive to religious sensibilities - remove it.

You have not addressed this.

Again, Guerilla, here you aren't answering the problem.

The images are prohibited among some Muslims; where those images are placed doesn't matter. They are, as Gauharjk mentions, Haram. Moving them to another page, or keeping them on the page I referred you to, is just as offensive. And by your argument, these, too, would need to be removed. Yet you said you wouldn't have a problem with just a subpage as I referred you to. These two views cannot co-exist.

Furthermore, keeping to Islam, as I said, many shia considers these images - which consist of the Prophet preaching, and, the earliest historical piece of work depicting the Prophet - as good things, not haram. They provide a good for the would be faithful. They are shown in Iran. Furthermore, these images hang today in the Topkapi gallery, Istanbul, in a country that is secular in constitution but peopled with an extraordinary amount of Muslims in its population. So - keeping to your theme of respecting Muslim sensibilities, do you continue to advocate this removal posture, when many of the world's Muslim population in fact finds these images to have a positive value? As Gauharjk says above, although most of the world's sunnis have a problem, there is no one standard. Many are not only not offended, but believe these are wonderful pedagogical devices (what Gautama Buddha would have called "skillful means," by the way).

And to your last paragraph, I don't find my argument "radical" at all, but quite commonsensically following from what you, and Ala, and others who would remove images because they find them "offensive." No one has said these are crap works of art - such as your example of "why not include my art?" They would be removed not as poor examples of art, or historical legacy, but because some people find them offensive to their religious sensibility. I find your example - "why not include my 'untalented' art" - as "radical," Guerilla, not germane to this question in any way.

Agreed, as I say above. In this instance, Wiki is in fact choosing free speech - it is choosing to present all views of the argument. These images are not wantonly anti-Islam cartoons, t-shirts or the like. And wiki faithfully discusses the taboos.

It's very basic, it seems to me. For all the reasons I state above, yet answered or not - how can you state you believe in individual liberty, in this case, yet wish to tell a private site it should remove some of its content, posted in a very polemic-neutral article?

Joke, brother, as I said.

I understand the paragraph, but don't understand the argument you are making to link this paragraph to your stand.

 

Well, that does actually get more complicated, because it is public, we have moved beyond private property rights, exclusively into the domain of freedom of speech.

First of all, I don't believe libraries should be public. It's not just religious groups that seek censorship and use public money and mandates to accomplish that. Libraries should be privatized. There is no reason an Islamic group, or a Christian group, or a group of motorcycle enthusiasts (or all of them simultaneously) could not create their own libraries.

But given that it is public, then we go to the First Amendment, which is that Congress shall write no law... freedom of religion.

Does this mean that the library should not carry any religious works, or that it must carry all religious works (approved/sanctioned or not).

What do you think?

 

My position is clear. The answer to speech (in this case) pictures you don't agree with is not to ban or censor them, but to allow and encourage more speech. So if a Muslim has a problem with the images, the answer should be to make an Islamic Wiki, or an Islamic library, or write a text explaining the prohibitions. What I would not tolerate is someone trying to censor information because it offends them.

I am not sure what you have against public libraries. They seem to be one of the truly beneficial uses of tax dollars that each citizen can chose to take advantage of. There is nothing about having public libraries that would prevent people from starting private libraries. I would encourage it - the more the better.

 

I think that if we get rid of taxpayer-funded libraries, the moral problem goes away.

And, with the success of the Internet, that once radical idea may soon become possible.

 

I need to add, Guerilla, that I don't think you are quite "fighting fair." We are all using rationality, which is the essence of debate. At one point in the thread, you went to:

And I replied with:

It seemed to me then, and I should have said it then, that as we all are using rational means to arrive at some useful notions, your slipping to the "artist" quote above felt somewhat disingenuous.

You are now classifying my stand as:

Both things, the diverting to a "creative" or "artistic" basis for this debate, and terming my stand as "radical," are not what I would call "fair fighting." In my opinion, these are subtly inappropriate means to undermine the substance of what I am saying, on the merits.

 

Good idea... Save for the ones in the public school.. My kid keeps bringing home the coolest Dr. Zeus books.. Nothing like touching a living breathing book once and a while..

 

Don't get me started on public schools.

 

Keep in mind, mine is in grade school.. The stuff he brings home, even Guru-SEO could comprehend...

Nothing real influential at that grade school level.. We looked at private originally, but the school system we have in Lake Geneva is actually out of this world.. Probably has something to do with the $17k in property taxes I pay annually. Good tax base, great schools, even better teachers. You'd think you were sending your kid to a private school here.

 

Even if you don't worry about the education, you still have to worry about the indoctrination.

Uh... oh.... now I'm getting started.

 

You didn't answer my question, but Will did.

Does the library have an obligation to have books on every single religion, and every single possible book about those religions, or should it have none at all?

Which one preserves not writing any laws abridging the freedom of religion?

I have no problem with people in a free market lobbying for change with a business or private enterprise. After all, a site like Wikipedia serves a lot of people, without whom, it may not serve a purpose, and possibly not be able to fund itself. It is susceptible to free market forces, regardless of the validity of its ideological mission.

Well, if I am (using the example in this thread) a Muslim, who does not approve of images of the prophet, and I am required to pay taxes that fund an institution that are not consistent with my preferences, isn't this some sort of moral issue?

Take for example pornography. Let's say, the only written material I consume is pornographic. I pay taxes. Should I be able to demand, in the interest of free speech, and my contribution to the system that my library provide pornography?

Maybe I am a Evangelical Christian. I don't believe in subsidizing books I would never buy myself, like say the Quran or a book on Abortion. Should my library stock them regardless? I'm helping to pay for it. Maybe I think there should be more books on Christianity than on Islam or Abortion, or that they shouldn't be provided by my contribution at all.

A privately funded library can be open to the public, but a public library can never reflect each individual private agenda.

 

They should but as many books as they can afford. It is an impossibility to have every book on a topic. So I would not say that either position is correct. I would encourage as many books as possible, and would not exclude any based on the notion that it might offend someone. I would not agree that they should have no books.

We agree on that.

In the United States, one does not get to pick and chose how their tax dollars are spent. There are many, many programs that I do not support, but I still pay my taxes. One does not have the option to direct their funds. However, since all money is fungible, it hardly matters. If it makes someone feel better they can think their taxes only went to support something they support.

I find this somewhat funny. When I was a boy, I wrote a paper on Alex Haley, the author of Roots. Someone told me he had done an extensive interview... in Playboy magazine. To my surprise, my local library had years of Playboy available to read. I was too young and my parents had to help me get the text of the article.

Anyway, as to your question. I do not think anyone has a right to demand materials. Whatever the library process is for requesting materials - they can use that and request whatever they want to see. If enough people requested a particular type of material, I really would not have any objection. Of course, personally, I would not want to see porn in libraries.

Same question over and over. Your tax dollars go to a library. You, like anyone in your community, can request that the library add any material you want to see. I am sure they have a system for evaluating and acting on those requests. Short of that, if you don't like everything in the library, too bad.

Nor does it seek to.


So, are you going to answer the question: Would you like to see all books portraying pictures of the Prophet banned from all libraries as offensive to Islam? (You can put aside the 1st amendment for now, as we know it would not be legal, but would YOU want it that way, if it were legal?)

 

browntwn really is correct. There are methods to manage a public resource that are not highly political.

Whatever titles are requested most can be stocked. Let the demand determine the supply.

It's still not a proper and constitutional use of government funds, but it's far from the worse problem facing our nation today.

P.S. Yes, I have read a copy of Playboy in a publicly-funded library reading room.