Literal Fashion Police Arrest Hundreds Of WhatsApp And Instagram Users In Iran

from the seems-reasonable dept

I'll admit I've had some fun in these pages with my friends over in the Iran over the years. In my defense, they have at times made the job quite easy for me, between trying to bolster their military reputation through video game footage, trying to suggest that the West carve out a non-free speech zone when it comes to criticizing Islam or members of its faith, and the country's policy of futility in trying to block its citizens from using the wider internet. These are actions worth criticism and scorn.

But things got a just a bit more dangerous for some in Iran this past week, as the country has announced it is cracking down on its citizens for actions against Islam and for infractions of fashion on display on several social media services. It seems some portion of the Revolutionary Guard has quite literally become the Fashion Police.

Iran has arrested or summoned about 450 social media users, a website linked to the Revolutionary Guards has reported. Users of apps such as Instagram, Telegram and WhatsApp have been targeted.

"These people were carrying out immoral activities, insulted religious beliefs or had illegal activities in the field of fashion," the Gherdab website said.

Details in the report or scant, but it's likely that those that have partaken in criminal fashion activities are undoubtedly female, and the criminal activity almost certainly involves perceived infractions against modesty that are taken so seriously in Islamic theocracies. This should provide a wonderful example of the benefits of secularism over theocracy, certainly, but it should also serve as a beacon of hope for change in a country run in the most unfortunate of fashions. Although, that previous statement comes along with the caveat that even the founders of secularism can manage an insane over-correction, such as what's currently going on along the beaches of Southern France, for example.

If we've learned anything over recent years, it's that demand for internet access and the ability for expression on its mediums will only grow, not shrink. And, if citizens of countries less free than others are bucking the rules, routing around the censorship and barriers to internet access, and partaking in expression so yearned for but considered illegal, no amount of claimed providence will keep those young men and, more importantly women, from growing up and changing their society to match their values.

Facebook and Twitter are banned in the Islamic republic, though software that provides access is easily available. More than half of Iran's 80 million population is online.

That's a good thing.

Not so good is potentially the fate of those caught in the current crackdown. Still, there is a reason that Iran makes such an effort of blocking its citizens from joining the rest of the networked world, and seeing so many of them streaming around the borders of the barriers means there is hope.

Filed Under: fashion police, iran, social media
Companies: instagram, telegram, whatsapp


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 3:39am

    Come to Nice, we're better than Iran... we arrest you for wearing to much.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 3:59am

    Uh, wrong conclusion

    This should provide a wonderful example of the benefits of secularism over theocracy

    Your beloved Jefferson and the Dem party has a horrible history of treatment of people of color. Not to mention your Darwinist friends in the communist party that have put many millions in the ground.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Tyl, 26 Aug 2016 @ 4:58am

      Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

      Oh, look, even the Revolutionary Guard reads Techdirt!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 5:20am

      Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

      So much wrong in your post ... but it simply does not address that which you quoted.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:24am

      Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

      "Your beloved Jefferson and the Dem party has a horrible history of treatment of people of color."

      This is certainly true, as the Democratic Party prior to the realignment in the 50s-60s were as or more hardline anti-civil rights than the Republicans. On the other hand, the opposite has been the case since that realignement. So, shall we focus on what these parties had done in the first half of this century, or shall we focus on what they've done more recently and at present?

      And, while Jefferson certainly had among the worst flaws imaginable in being a slave owner, I would stand by the statement that his work has brought more freedom to the world than any other person in the history of the planet.

      "Not to mention your Darwinist friends in the communist party that have put many millions in the ground."

      When is this canard about Darwin=Communist going to end? It's not accurate, it's barely correlative, and the term "Darwinist" doesn't even make sense....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:38am

        Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

        Not only that, but there are those who would cheer making slavery legal again - guess which candidate they have aligned themselves with.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:48am

          Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

          Just because some people back a candidate doesn't mean the candidate believes as they do or condones them. The Communist Party in the US backs Hillary; does that make the Dems communist?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 9:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

            Does Hillary actively encourage the commies?
            Yeah, your analogy stinks.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 10:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

              Sorry, but my analogy is exactly the one used against me. So if it doesn't work for me, it doesn't work for them.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 8:24am

          Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

          Really? I've read some disgusting sites on line, shit such as Stormfront, and I can't recall seeing anyone ever advocating a return of slavery. I've seen plenty of "ship 'em back to Africa" and claims of various genetic inferiorities, though.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:47am

        Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

        It is completely accurate, Google Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Darwin if you like. It also hits to your point that secular governments are somehow saints. What you fail to realize is governments are run by people and people are corrupt.

        And no, the Republicans are not the racist, sexist, phobic people the left like to believe they are. The only people that believe those lies are the left and it makes you look pathetic by repeating them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 7:06am

          Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

          Wrong. Hitler was Christian. Moa was Theravada Buddhist. Darwin also was Christian. Stalin was Christian and studying to be a priest but probably become an atheist. However, Stalin never actually did anything in the name of atheism.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 7:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

            Darwin studied as a Christian but left his faith. Mao listed Darwin as one of his favorite authors and credited evolution as the reason he did what he did. Stalin received Darwin's book when he was 13 and was inspired by its teachings.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 9:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

              One person did stuff,
              therefore all people do the same stuff.

              Awesome logic there.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 8:49am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

            Hitler was Christian.
            Well actually the most that can be said is that Hitler publically espoused Christianity as a matter of practical convenience. His mother may have been catholic but his father was rather anti-church.

            He is on record as saying that Islam would have been better for the German people. The Nazis also attempted to create an "Aryan" version of Christianity with the Jewish bits taken out!

            If you want to take over a nominally Christian country you had better call yourself a Christian - it doesn't mean you are one.

            Mao was Theravada Buddhist.
            Take that one up with the Dalai Lama!

            Stalin was Christian and studying to be a priest but probably become an atheist. However, Stalin never actually did anything in the name of atheism.

            Stalin did almost everything from the revolution up to mid WW2 in the name of "dialetical materialism" - of which atheism is a core tenet. To anyone who knows the history of the Russian Church between the wars your statement appears to be the result only of breathtaking ignorance!

            Somewhere in mid WW2 he dramtically changed tack for a while because Russia was losing. After the war the soviet regime returned to its atheist mantra.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 7:53am

          Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

          "It is completely accurate, Google Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Darwin if you like."

          Please. Stalin wasn't remotely a secularist. He created a church out of the state, was a minister in his youth, and even promoted "miracles" within communism, such as Lysenko's biology (2 harvests every season! wheee!). Mao Zedong, meanwhile, certainly was anti-religious, which isn't the same thing as secular. But, he ran his state as a secular state, so I take your point. However, why you would lead with Mao as an example of secularism instead of, oh I don't know, the UNITED STATES, is beyond me. As for Hitler, he wasn't remotely secular and it's laughable that you seem to think he was. He was overtly religious, as is easily proven.

          "It also hits to your point that secular governments are somehow saints."

          Not only did I not say anything remotely like that, I certainly hope you crafted the end of this sentence to be ironic, because it most certainly is. What I actually SAID was that secularism is preferable to theocracy. Is that REALLY something you're not prepared to agree with?

          "And no, the Republicans are not the racist, sexist, phobic people the left like to believe they are. The only people that believe those lies are the left and it makes you look pathetic by repeating them."

          Well, I'm most certainly not on the Left, as you call it, and Republicans most certainly ARE tilted towards racism and sexism to a degree more than the liberal parties we have. This isn't to make an overt generalization. Put another way: there are more members of a racist/sexist fringe in the Republican Party than in the Democrat Party. Both parties have these elements, both parties are NOT majority in those leanings, but pretending they're equal or that Dems are more racist is hysterically wrong....

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 8:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

            Hitler wasn't just overtly religious, he was an occultist and superstition chaser.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Ninja (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 8:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

            It's cute how people use "Left" in politics without having a clue what it really means.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 8:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

              It means the same as right, and that is a member of the other gang.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 9:22am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

              It's sad how some people feel the need to think in terms of right/left rather than logically evaluate the situation on its own merits.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 10:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

            ut another way: there are more members of a racist/sexist fringe in the Republican Party than in the Democrat Party.

            Citation please.

            If you want to see who the racists are, google the connection between Johnson and the 15th amendment and what he had to say about it.

            If you want to see the connection between abortion and racism, google the quotes from Margaret Sanger.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 10:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

            What I actually SAID was that secularism is preferable to theocracy

            I am not advocating for a theocracy because you cannot make people believe what they don't want to believe. But you do realize, ultimately government is the bending of some people's will to other people's will whether it is secular or theocratic or any other form. We do not have true freedom here because if you do not believe, say or do as the current administration wants you will be sued, fined and possibly jailed.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 10:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

            However, why you would lead with Mao as an example of secularism instead of, oh I don't know, the UNITED STATES, is beyond me.

            It rather depends on what you mean by secularism. Does secularism simply mean the separation of church and state - or does it mean some kind of aggressive anti-religious stance?

            Since the United States motto is in God We Trust" it is not clear to me why it should be held up as an example of secularism.

            I would describe the United States as a deeply religious, (historically) overwhelmingly Christian, country that adopted an (officially) religiously neutral government system in order to prevent the otherwise inevitable rise of religious conflict. In doing this the founding fathers were extending the model for defusing religious conflict that had earlier ended the 30 years war in Germany. To portray the founding fathers as non or even anti-religious is more than a stretch.

            The US government is thus a very different animal from the Chinese government - which still officially espouses atheism.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 12:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

              "It rather depends on what you mean by secularism. Does secularism simply mean the separation of church and state - or does it mean some kind of aggressive anti-religious stance?"

              Secularism is the policy of having the government both have no official religion and take no position of favor between religions. It is the separation of church and state. That's all it is.

              "Since the United States motto is in God We Trust" it is not clear to me why it should be held up as an example of secularism."

              I said we were secular, not PERFECTLY secular.

              "I would describe the United States as a deeply religious, (historically) overwhelmingly Christian, country that adopted an (officially) religiously neutral government system in order to prevent the otherwise inevitable rise of religious conflict. In doing this the founding fathers were extending the model for defusing religious conflict that had earlier ended the 30 years war in Germany."

              Which is about as perfect an example of secular democracy as you will find.

              "To portray the founding fathers as non or even anti-religious is more than a stretch."

              As with any other group of people, there was a mix. That said, some of the most important founders were certainly non-religious and/or actively atheist. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and Thomas Jefferson were all publicly deists at most, with all three of them actively writing against and making policy against religion. Paine in particular was about as anti-religious as it gets. Others called themselves Christian, but were so heavily influenced by deism that this claim doesn't really square with their other professed beliefs. Still others were devoutly Christian, such as Patrick Henry. That said, this nation was founded on the ideals of the enlightenment, which was itself a massive pushback on organized religion and its power.

              To suggest that this nation isn't a beacon of secularism isn't just wrong, it missed the entire point of the country.

              "The US government is thus a very different animal from the Chinese government - which still officially espouses atheism."

              Correct. It would be every bit as illegal for our government to adopt a policy of atheism as Christianity. The 1st amendment's instructions to our government can bu summed up as: you shall take no position respecting religion.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:51am

      Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

      He really wanted to say your Darwinist friends in the Nazi party but knew that would invoke Godwin's law so went with the Communists.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:54am

        Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

        Not afraid of that at all and I named Hitler in my response. Sorry, but the truth hurts. I could have pointed out that his anti-Islamic rhetoric could get him labelled as Islamaphobic, but I didn't. ;)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 7:08am

          Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

          In a later post not your initial one. And when you did you were wrong. Hitler was still a Christian.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 7:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

            That is totally false. He replaced the images in the church with his own image and was trying to create the master race. There is nothing Christian about that.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 7:27am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

              Fun quotes!

              "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

              -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

              Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

              -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

              The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated.

              For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.

              -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

              God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work.

              Radio address, 30 January 1945; from Thomas Streissguth (2002). World War II. New York: Greenhaven Press, p. 118.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 7:52am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                A tree is known by its fruit so a true Christian would know that the Jews are God's chosen people and not somebody to defend against. He may invoke whatever religion he likes to whip the masses into a frenzy behind him. To blame a religion for the actions of a follower is misguided at best. If you want to blame a religion for something, then look at its teachings. No where does it teach the killing of Jews.

                Now Darwinism on the other hand, provides all the justification a body needs to kill any one at any time for any reason or no reason. After all, it is just survival of the fittest.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 9:23am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                  No true scotsman

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 11:57am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                    No true scotsman

                    Way to misunderstand the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

                    It annoys me how often people misuse "no true Scotsman".

                    You see the important point is to understand the basis of the membership of a set. Now the set of "Scotsmen" is defined by those who are either born in Scotland, born to scottish parents or naturalised to Scotland . Now there is some ambiguity about these criteria but these are all based on matters of birth or residency. The person who erroneously says "no true Scotsman would fiddle his taxes" (or whatever) is trying to associate a moral category with a birth or residency category and of course you can redefine scottishness based on a moral quality.

                    However Christianity is either a moral category or a belief category to start with so the "no true Scotsman" fallacy doesn't work in this one.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 11:58am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                      sorry - it should say "and of course you can't redefine scottishness based on a moral quality."

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 9:40am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                  You had me up until the Darwinism bit... Having actually read Origin of the Species and having some knowledge of the English language and how it has shifted, "survival of the fittest" just means that the adaptations that help an organism to survive will be the ones that survive over the long term. Darwinism itself has less to do with Darwin and more to do with mid-century Existentialism, which took parts of the humanist movement and paired them with a lack of manifest destiny, using the observations of Darwin as the proof.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 12:09pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                  You may have missed it but the bible is chock full of 'God's chosen people' being punished by god for screwing up in one fashion or another, and as such it wouldn't be that difficult for a zealot to say that the jews had screwed up so badly that they were no longer 'god's chosen people', and/or that whatever is being done to them is their punishment this time around, because as 'god's chosen people' clearly if god wanted to prevent what was being done to them he could and would, meaning if he doesn't then he wants it to happen.

                  Make other arguments if you want, but 'Hitler did terrible things to the jews and therefore couldn't be a christian' isn't really one supported by your book.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 12:25pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                    You may have missed it but the bible is chock full of 'God's chosen people' being punished by god for screwing up in one fashion or another,

                    Or rather they believed that their misfortunes were the result of their sins - but please bear in mind that the bible isn't supposed to be the literal word of God (like the Koran) but rather the writing of men inspired by God.

                    On the other hand God himself - as reported by Christ - has a rather different line.

                    "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 12:44pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                      "Or rather they believed that their misfortunes were the result of their sins - but please bear in mind that the bible isn't supposed to be the literal word of God (like the Koran) but rather the writing of men inspired by God."

                      Well, that depends entirely on which version of Christianity you belong to, because biblical literalism is actually a thing....

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 4:08pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                      but please bear in mind that the bible isn't supposed to be the literal word of God

                      That is very false. Man was the pen but God was the author. Hard to believe there would be a God that could create the universe and not get a book right.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 11:34am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. ....etc.... For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

                Those were Hitler's PUBLIC views - his private views were somewhat different:

                You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?
                Quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115

                and
                Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

                Adolf Hitler's Monologe im Führerhauptquartier (Monologue with Headquarters of the Führer). Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus, 1980.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 11:48am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

              Yeah, funny thing but that 'master race' thing was also religiously motivated, as Hitler believed that the mixing of races was creating abominations and that only the true race was pleasing and 'in god's image'.

              From Mein Kampf:

              "The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."

              ...

              "A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

              ...

              "That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"


              As for the whole 'Darwinism' line below about how Darwinism somehow supports actions like his, no, it really doesn't. First of all 'Darwinist/Darwinism' as a term makes absolutely no freaking sense(if you believe in relativity does that make you an 'Einsteinian'? Does accepting the gravity make you a 'Newtonian'?). It's the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, to explain the fact of evolution and how it works in general. Darwin may have been one of the big names that got the ball rolling, but it's advanced quite a bit since his time, so get your terminology right and stop using such laughable projectionist terms.

              On to the second half, evolutionary theory has nothing about should, only about is. 'This is what has happened and this is how it happened', it has nothing to say about 'this is what should happen'. People can run with it from there to commit all sorts of acts, some nice, some not so nice, but that has nothing to do with evolution theory itself, and if you'd like to say otherwise I could easily point to a good number of passages in your holy book that actually are 'should' passages that command some really horrible acts, so be careful before throwing those stones.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 12:06pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                As for the whole 'Darwinism' line below about how Darwinism somehow supports actions like his,

                Of course scientific theories should never be dragooned into supporting particular philosophical, religious or political opinions. But lots of people do ( mostly not quite in the Hitler category - eg Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc). Once that happens then other people can legitimately (if rather sloppily) complain about (say) "Darwinism" as a shorthand for "a particular political theory that claims to be based on Darwin's theory". That doesn't necessarily imply rejection of the scientific theory.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 12:15pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                  I could easily point to a good number of passages in your holy book that actually are 'should' passages that command some really horrible acts, so be careful before throwing those stones.

                  No you can't - at least not from a purely Christian (as opposed to old testament) point of view.

                  Matthew 22
                  37 “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’e 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’f 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

                  and 1 john 4: 20

                  . If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does
                  not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

                  You can accuse Christianity of inconsistency if you believe that the old testament commands violence whilst Jesus (whose words surely trump anything in the old testament) says differently but you cannot reasonably accuse it of commanding violence.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 12:42pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                    "No you can't - at least not from a purely Christian (as opposed to old testament) point of view."

                    I can certainly show the cruelty of the New Testament:

                    1. Jesus cast out devils by casting them INTO pigs, which then threw themselves off of a cliff and died (Jesus Vick)

                    2. Jesus says that cities that will not admit the disciples shall suffer worse than Sodom and Gomorrah....

                    3. Jesus quite plainly says that he has come to split families that will fight over his religion. Jesus, the omnipotent home-wrecker....

                    4. Jesus quite often talks about how many people his angels will cast down into hell-fire. That's pretty immoral and cruel....

                    5. Peter quite literally says that those who do not follow Christ must be killed.

                    6. Romans and Leviticus both recommend putting homosexuals to death, which qualifies as recommending horrible acts.....

                    7. Romans also deems blood sacrifices a good way to absolve sin....

                    I mean, there's more if you need it....

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 1:22pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                      1. Jesus cast out devils by casting them INTO pigs, which then threw themselves off of a cliff and died (Jesus Vick)
                      Well he "allowed" the demons to do that - but what happened after that was not his particular responsibility - except for the general "why does God allow evil?" question. If you want to understand THAT one then i suggest you study the sporotuality of St Isaac the Syrian - it is most enlightening. (see below) It doesn't amount to a command to his followers to drown pigs.

                      Jesus says that cities that will not admit the disciples shall suffer worse than Sodom and Gomorrah....
                      this is talking about the last judgement - not something that Christians are commanded to implement.
                      Again - go study St Isaac.

                      3. Jesus quite plainly says that he has come to split families that will fight over his religion.


                      Prediction does not amount to responsibility - otherwise weather forecasters would be toast!

                      4. Jesus quite often talks about how many people his angels will cast down into hell-fire.


                      Last judgement again - see above.

                      5. Peter quite literally says that those who do not follow Christ must be killed.


                      Citation needed - I'm gueessing you've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere - but you need to tell me where you got that from.
                      6. Romans and Leviticus both recommend putting homosexuals to death, which qualifies as recommending horrible acts
                      Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery - which is a similar punishment in Leviticus. I'm not sure which bit of Romans you're reading BUT my recollection is that - at most it simply says that such will not inherit the Kingdom - again we're talking last judgement and you need to read about St Isaac.

                      7. Romans also deems blood sacrifices a good way to absolve sin....

                      Again I'll need a specific reference to answer that one.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 4:13pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                      It is God's judgement on man which is quite just. Why would God want to spend eternity with people who don't want to spend it with him?

                      The ultimate blood sacrifice was Jesus so no more sacrifice is needed. I find it interesting that non-believers continue to purport to know what the bible teaches. They cannot fully understand it as they are spiritually blind.

                      1st Cor 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 8:25am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                        It is God's judgement on man which is quite just.

                        Would us, as mere mortals, feel that it is acceptable to punish children for the sins of their parents?

                        Doesn't sound real just to me, especially that before eating the apple, Adam & Eve wouldn't have had the knowledge to know right from wrong.

                        It's refreshing that you find it interesting about us non-believers. Most of us were indoctrinated into your cults as children, when we were incapable of knowing better. But I'm sure you already knew that.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 1:22pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                    You can accuse Christianity of inconsistency if you believe that the old testament commands violence whilst Jesus (whose words surely trump anything in the old testament) says differently but you cannot reasonably accuse it of commanding violence.

                    Oh I certainly can accuse it of commanding violence.
                    When the bible no longer contains the old testament, we can say it does not command violence.
                    When churches no longer read and analyze verse from the old testament, we can say it does not command violence.

                    However no one seems to have the balls to demand it be removed.

                    Otherwise, you're just cherry-picking the nice touchy-feely stuff and ignoring god being a pretentious dick for several thousand years.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Richard (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 1:29pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion


                      Oh I certainly can accuse it of commanding violence.

                      But you would be wrong!

                      The words of Jesus demand that the OT be interpreted as consistent with "Love your neighbor as yourself." That should be enough for any reasonable person.

                      Readings in our church refer to the old testament as "the parables" - so it is not meant to be taken as literally as the New. Plus there is much good in the OT too.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 1:43pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                        But you would be wrong!

                        Well I guess then I need to read it and smoke what you're smoking, as words appear to mean much different things to you than the rest of us.

                        The words of Jesus demand that the OT be interpreted as consistent with "Love your neighbor as yourself." That should be enough for any reasonable person.

                        I see...so bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9) is consistent with loving your neighbor.
                        And killing those who worship other gods (2 Kings 10:18-27)? That's also the neighborly thing to do?

                        Exactly what kind of neighborly interpretation can you get from that? Or was Jesus just high when he said that?

                        Readings in our church refer to the old testament as "the parables" - so it is not meant to be taken as literally as the New.

                        As literally? Not for nothing, you take some of that even remotely literally and you'll find yourself in a jail or psych ward. But then again, I guess a psychopathic god is appealing to some.

                        Just not me.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2016 @ 4:15pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                          so bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9) is consistent with loving your neighbor

                          First, that was not a command by God. Second, how can people who support the killing of unborn children feign anger of this?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 8:21am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                            So then are you arguing that Psalms is NOT full of suggestions as to how a mature follower of god should act?

                            Because not for nothing, if you'd like to go down that rabbit hole, I'm fully prepared to oblige.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    That One Guy (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 3:12pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh, wrong conclusion

                    No you can't - at least not from a purely Christian (as opposed to old testament) point of view.

                    Yeah, no, not buying the 'But that's the old testament!' argument. Same god, and depending on your particular brand of chrisitity it might even be the same person since some sects believe that Jesus wasn't actually a separate entity but just god made flesh, so the idea that the OT acts/commands are somehow superseded is a real stretch(was god a horrible monster and mellowed out over time? Is Jesus actually more powerful than god and able to make new dictates that overrule the old ones?).

                    If you don't want to own up to the OT and the acts committed in it then great, throw it out, but so long as it's part of the religion you don't get to act like the OT stuff never happened, or wasn't filled to the brim with bloodshed and butchery 'because Jesus!'

                    37 “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’e 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’f 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

                    Which leaves open a gigantic loophole, namely 'What happens if the master you love to much orders you to do something that isn't very neighborly'? Like say, sacrificing your son, killing anyone who worships other gods, or something along those lines?

                    You can accuse Christianity of inconsistency if you believe that the old testament commands violence whilst Jesus (whose words surely trump anything in the old testament) says differently but you cannot reasonably accuse it of commanding violence.

                    Because it absolutely does command and justify violence in abundance, and I don't really see Jesus as much better, as it's in the NT that you get the idea of eternal punishment.

                    In the OT, horrible as it was, dead was dead pretty much, that was the 'punishment' for making god mad, you got slaughtered(or given boils, or buried alive, or any other number of things). NT though you get the idea that if you get god mad and don't kiss up before death then you're going to spend eternity paying for it, which is if anything even worse than the OT atrocities.

                    Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
                    10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

                    . If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does
                    not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen


                    Boy, that sure makes this next part awkward now doesn't it?

                    Luke, 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Adam, 26 Aug 2016 @ 6:14am

    Great...

    $400 million and they spend it on this?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 26 Aug 2016 @ 11:05am

    Remember, Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion that absolutely does not oppress women...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Pronounce (profile), 26 Aug 2016 @ 12:09pm

    I'm All for Criticism of Other Cultures and Beliefs

    Just leave American out of the worldwide policing actions that our anti-culture attitude seems to generate.

    We know about the barbarous actions of ISIS, the thought policing of France, the fashion policing of Iran, the child abduction of Boko Haram, etc., etc., etc., etc. ...

    And if the U.S. wants to be the savior of this world then it needs to clean up its shit before bombing the shit out of other places on this planet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    radiorico, 26 Aug 2016 @ 2:31pm

    Burkinafolies -26 August 2016

    Burkinafolies

    Today the Constitutional Council decided that the municipal decrees prohibiting the 'burkina' on public beaches in France because of the danger to 'public order' is invalid - because these costumes present no danger to public order.

    The mayor of the particular municipality that had its anti-burkina decree quashed insisted that he will continue the ban against the burkina. The mayors of several other towns with similar decrees - also shot down by the Constitutional Council's decision - said that they would continue their bans, in defiance of the French Constitution.

    Banning the burkina is supported by the rightwing Republicans and its president Nicolas Sarkozy, and by the ultra-rightwing Front National. They claim that wearing the burkina on beaches in France will result in public disorder and other affronts to society.

    Civil rights groups welcomed today's decision by the Constitutional Council. Meanwhile the President is pretending to be neutral, the Prime Minister is in a snit, and most Socialists were in favour of the Council's judgement. For a majority of the French the whole fake drama is a big snooze.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.